Marine Mammal 

Protection Act 

of 1972 

Annual Report 

1982183 

June 1983 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Natlonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 
COVER : 

Mature bull northern elephant seal on San Clemente 

Island, Calif. Photo by Dana Seagars, NMFS, Southwest 

Region. 
Marine Memmal 

Protection Act of 1972 

Annual Report 

April 1,1982, to March 31,1983 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

John V. Byrne, Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

William G. Gordon. Ass~stant Administrator tor Fisheries 
President of the Senate 

Speaker of the House of Representatives 

Sirs: 

I am pleased to submit the Annual Report of the Department of 

Commerce regarding the administration of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972 for the period k-?ril 1, 1982 through 

March 31, 1983, as required by Section 103(f) of the Act. 

The Department of Commerce is responsible for implementing the 

Act with respect to whales and porpoises of the order Cetacea 

and seals and sea lions of the suborder Pinnipedia. The report 

details the activities of the Department regarding these marine 

mamma 1 s . 

Sincerely , 

Secretary of Commerce 4 

Enclosure 
CONTENTS 

Introduction ..................................................... Summary .......................................................... Funding .......................................................... Part I - Administration ........................................... Implementing the 1981 amendments to the MMPA ............. General permits . incidental take of marine mammals 

during commercial fishing operations .................. Scientific research and public display permits ........... Marine mammal stranding network .......................... Law enforcement .......................................... Part II . Legal actions ............................................ Part 111 - Marine mammals and fisheries interactions ................ Part IV . International programs and activities .................... Part V - Management and research programs o........................ 

Cetaceans ................................................ Bowhead whale .................................... Gray whale ............................................ Humpback whale ........................................ North Atlantic cetaceans .............................. Bottlenose dolphins ................................... Porpoise and commercial fishing operations ............ Porpoise and the tuna purse-seine fishery .......... Dall's porpoise and the Japanese salmon fishery .... PI atforms of opportunity programs ..................... Pinnipeds ................................................. Hawaiian monk seal .................................... California coastal pinniped program ................... Northern fur seals in A1 aska .............-............ 

North Atlantic pinnipeds ............................... Part VI . Appendixes 

Tables 

Laws and treaties 

Federal register notices and regulations 

iii 

INTRODUCTION 

Ten years ago, the Congress enacted the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972 (the Act or MMPA) and committed the United 

States to continuing long-term mnagement and research programs 

that would conserve and protect these animals. Although there are 

a few exceptions, the Act placed a moratorium on taking or 

importing marine mammals or their products into the United States, 

and it applies to persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction on the high 

seas. In 1976, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MFCMA) expanded U.S. control of marine mammals to include the 

200 mi 1 e fishery conservation zone (FCZ). 

The Act delegated authority and responsibi 1 i ty for oceanic 

marine mammals to the Secretary of the Agency where the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates. Under 

NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible 

for species of the order Cetacea, whales and dolphins, and the 

order Carnivora, suborder Pinnipedia, seals and sea lions, except 

walruses. The Department of the Interior is responsible for the 

dugong, manatee, pol ar bear, sea otter, and walrus. 

The moratorium does not apply to every marine mammal 

species. Those already managed under international agreements, 

such as the northern fur seal, are exempt as long as the 

agreemefits further the purposes of the Act. ,.Also, under a permit 

system, marine mammals may be taken for scientific research, 

public display, and incidental to commercial fishing. The 1981 
amendments to the Act added two categories of "small take" to the 

moratorium exception. Further, certain natives of A1 aska may take 

marine mammals for subsistence use and production of 

handicrafts. Although the Act made management of marine mammals a 

Federal Government responsibility, it provides for the return of 

their management to the States. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service grants or denies 

requests for exemptions, issues permits, carries out research and 

management programs, enforces the Act, participates in 

international programs, and issues rules and regul ations. To 

carry out its mission to conserve and protect marine mammals, NMFS 

cooperates with the States, conservation organizations, the 

public, other Federal agencies, the Marine Mammal Commission, and 

many constituent groups including scientific researchers and the 

pub1 ic displ ay community. 

NMFS's marine mammal research programs are the responsibility 

of the Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, Calif.; the Southeast 

Fisheries Center, Miami, Fla.; the Northeast Fisheries Center, 

Woods Wole, Mass. ; and the National Marine Mammal Laboratory 

(NMML), Northwest and A1 aska Fisheries Center, Seattle, Wash. 

Management programs are the responsibility of the Northeast 

Region, Gloucester, Mass.; the Southeast Region, St. Petersburg, 

Fla.; the Northwest Region, Seattle, Wash.; the Southwest Region, 

Terminal Is1 and, Calif. ; and the A1 aska Region, Juneau, A1 aska. 

This annual report to Congress is available from the Office 

of Protected Species and Habitat Conservation, NMFS, Washington, 

D.C. 20235. 

SUMMARY 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act has been in effect for over 

a decade, and, although many issues remain, progress has been made 

in solving some of the problems addressed by the Act. One problem 

was the incidental take of porpoises in the tuna purse-seine 

fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific. In 1972, the year the 

Act was passed, over 350,000 porpoises died in tuna nets. In 

1982, a little over 20,000 porpoises were killed in this 

fishery. However, the recent decision of the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals in Balelo v. Baldrige, which invalidated the regulation 
requiring the pl acement of marine mammal observers aboard tuna 

boats, has jeopardized NMFS's ability to carry out its statutory 

responsibilities effectively. The observers' duties had been to 

collect scientific information and monitor the take of porpoise. 

NMFS needs this information to issue a general permit to allow 

fishing on porpoise and to enforce against violations of the 

Act. At this time, we are working closely with represlentatives of 

the tuna industry and the environmental community to work out a 

satisfactory solution that will allow NMFS to fulfill its 

scientific and management responsibilities. 

NMFS operates a successful permit system that allows marine 

mammals to be taken or imported for scientific research and public 

display. NMFS decides whether to grant the requests for permits 

on a timely basis and monitors all currently valid permits for 

take which number 253 at this time. 

Since most marine mammals are highly migratory, we have 

international agreements to protect them. Probably the most 

visible international achievement in 1982 was the mora1:orium on 

commerci a1 whal ing voted on by the International Whal i ng 

Commission (IWC) at its 34th anuual meeting in Brighton, 

England. The United States has vigorously pressed for a 

moratorium through the IWC since 1972. Although Japan, Norway, 

Peru, and the U.S.S.R. have filed formal objections to the 

"cessation", the United States supports the decision and will take 

advantage of a1 1 U.S. 1 aws and regulations to ensure that the 

cessation is carried out. 

For several years,,the IWC has set quotas.on the number of 

endangered bowhead whales that can be taken for subsistence by 

A1 aska n,atives. NOAA and the A1 aska Eskimo Whaling Conmission 

(AEWC) regul ate this hunt through a cooperative agreement. 

During the 1982 spring and fall hunting season, the natives landed 

eight out of nineteen whales struck. Scientists from the National 

Mari ne Mammal Laboratory reanalyzed the data concerni ng the 

estimated popul ation size of the bowhead whale and presented these 

findings to the Scientific Committee of the IWC which now 

estimates the present stock size at 3,857; the previous estimate 

was 2,264. 

In 1981, the Congress made several changes to the Act, and, 

in 1982, MFS began to implement these changes., To implement one 

of the amendments concerning a small take of marine manlrnal s, NMFS 

pub1 ished final regul ations that specify procedures for a1 1 owing, 
on request, the small take of marine mammals incidental to 

specified activities. The first part covers general procedures 

for requesting a take. The second part covers the take of ringed 

seals during seismic exploration activities on the ice in the 

Beaufort Sea. For the 1983 season, NMFS issued six Letters of 

Authorization that allow an incidental take of ringed seals from 

Point Barrow east to Demarcation Point on the U.S.-Canadian 

border. The request for NMFS to develop "small take" regulations 

must come from the person or group that will be conducting the 

activities. A1 so, we are developing proposed regul ations that 

cover the "small incidental take" of marine mammals during 

commerci a1 fishing operations. 

The '81 amendments also made changes concerning the return of 

management of marine mammals to the States. NMFS will publish the 

final regulations in May 1983 concerning return of management: 

these regulations were developed jointly with the Fish and 

Wild1 ife Service. Several States, including A1 aska and 

Cal iforni a, are interested in resuming management of certain 

species. 

NMFS issues general permits that allow foreign and domestic 

fisheries to take marine mammals incidental to commerci a1 fishing 

operations provided that both are fishing in conformance with 

regul at ions that protect these animals. The general permit that 

allows the largest take is the one issued to the American Tunaboat 

Association to take 20,500 porpoises each year. The next largest 

permit goes to the Japan Fisheries Agency and a1 lows a take of 

5,975 animals. Of these, 5,500 are Dall's porpoises that die in 

drift gillnets used in Japan's high seas salmon fishery in the 

North Pacific Ocean. This fishery, which takes place in the FCZ, 

is subject to the conditions of a Memorandum of Understanding 

between the U.S. and Japan concerning coordinated research efforts 

and compl iance with the permit as well as other requirements of 

the MMPA. 

Research on Dall's porpoise became controversial after NMFS 

issued a research permit to its Northwest and Alaska Fisheries 

Center that allowed the killing. of up to 960 Dall 's porpoises over 

a 5-year period. Members of Congress proposed a 3-year extension 

to the general permit to Japan in exchange for cancellation of the 

portion of the research that involved killing the porpoises. The 

Congress amended the North Pacific Fisheries Act in December 1982, 

and the permit to Japan was extended until 1987 provided certain 

conditions are met. Meanwhile, NMFS will use other methods of 
research t o f u l f i l l its responsibilities to ensure that the number 

of porpoises killed in this fishery is reduced. 

Although NMFS is the lead Federal Government agency on many 

marine mamma1 projects, other agencies also are involved in marine 

mamma1 research. These agencies are usually involved because 

activities that they authorize affect marine mammals. This is the 

case of the Minerals Management Service (MMS), Department of the 

Interior, which has responsibility under the Outer Continental 

She1 f (OCS) Lands Act for 1 easing, exploration, production and 

development of OCS oil and gas resources as well as for 

predicting, detecting, and mitigating the adverse effects of OCS 

oil and gas development on the environment. NMFS, along with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is responsible under the MMPA and 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for reviewing proposed actions 

and advising the MMS of the measures that may be needed to assure 

that the proposed actions will not be to the disadvantage of 

marine mammals and other wi 1 dl ife. 

While the MMPA is the most prominent law protecting marine 

mammals, the NMFS conducts research, administers programs, and 

receives funds under other wildlife laws such as the Whaling 

Convention Act of 1949, the Fur Seal Act of 1966, and the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. Therefore, in our report on 

administration of the MMPA, we include the total research and 

management programs for marine mammals although these activities 

may be partially funded or implemented under another law. 

FUNDING 

In a report pub1 ished by the Marine Mammal Commission, Survey 

of Federally-Funded Marine Mammal Research and Studies from FY 70 

- FY 81, it was found that at least 14 different Federal 

department-level agencies have funded research. Five agencies, 

including the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Interior, as 

well as the Marine Mammal Commission and the National Science 

Foundation funded 72 to 91 percent of the annual number of 

projects and supported 70 to 93 percent of the annual cost of 

Federally-funded research involving marine mammals. From 1970 

through 1980, Federal funding increased; however, by 1981, reduced 

funding was the common trend. One of the conc'lusions of the 

report was that "wasteful duplicative research was not found to 
occur. Research topics have been numerous and, as a whole, 

focused on problems relevant to issues under the MMPA." The 

report found that between FY (fiscal year) 74 and FY 77, Federal 

funding of cetacean and pinniped research was about equal. 

Beginning in FY 78, funds for cetacean research increased 

substani ally, and by FY 81, funding of cetacean research exceeded 

funding of pinnipeds by more than four times. Also, more 

regionally-oriented research has occured in waters adjacent to 

A1 aska than along any other State or group of adjacent States. In 

Commerce, expenditures on marine mammal studies by NMFS quadrupled 

from FY 74 to FY 80. These increases in funds reflect 

appropriations to this agency under the MMPA and the ESA. Also, 

the study found that in recent years, over one-half of the Federal 

funds spent annually on marine mammal research have been for 

studies carried out by scientists employed by Federal agencies as 

opposed to the non-Federal scientific community. 

In FY 1982, NMFS expended $10,201,000 on research and 

management of its marine mammal programs. In FY 83, the projected 

funds a1 so are $10,201,000. 
Figure 2 - Volunteers in the California Marine Mammal 

Stranding Network capture an ailing California 

sea lion for treatment and rehabilitation. Photo 

courtesy of Glenda Ganny Carroll. 

r 7 
PART I - ADMINISTRATION 

Implementing the 1981 Amendments to the MMPA 

Substantial changes were made to the MMPA by the Congress in 

1981, and NMFS has implemented several of these during the past 

year. 

Small Take of Marine Mammals 

Two of the amendments were made to solve the problem of the 

unintentional taking of small numbers of non-depl eted animal s when 

the taking does not qualify for one of the exceptions to the 

general moratori um. This change a1 1 evi ates the burden imposed by 

the permit, hearing, and regulatory scheme for small takes by 

commercial fishermen or small takes that were the result of other 

activities. Neither of the new exceptions requires a permit; 

although for activities other than commercial fishing, NMFS has 

had to develop regulations and other means of administration. 

Final regul at i ons governing small takes of marine mammals 

incidental to specified activities were published May 18, 1982. 

Subpart A of the regul at i ons includes procedures for submitting 

and evaluating general requests to allow these animals to be taken 

incidental to a specified activity in a specified geographical 

region. Subpart B establ ishes specific regul ations to take ringed 

seals incidental to on-ice seismic activities in the Beaufort Sea 

from 1982 through 1986. It outlines permissible methods, dates, 

and locations of takings and requirements for monitoring and 

report i ng. 

We issued three Letters of Authorization to seismic 

exploration companies in 1982 and six Letters for activities in 

1983. NMFS issued these Letters based on a finding that the level 

of taking would have a negligible impact on the ringed seal 

species or stock and its habitat and on its availability for 

subsistence use. The specific geographic location in the 

regulations covers the Beaufort Sea from Pt. Barrow east to 

Demarcation Pt. These activities may take place only between 

January 1 and May 31, and two types of energy sources, the 

vibrator-type and watergun method, have been authorized. These 

Letters are valid for one year. 
In addition, NMFS has requested information and has given 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking concerning a section of the 

amended Act that allows NMFS to modify its incidental take 

regulations and to exempt from the general permit process certain 

commercial fishing operations performed by U.S. citizens which 

result in the take of small numbers of non-depleted marine 

mammals. The proposed regulations will be published in the spring 

of 1983. 

Return of Management to States 

The amendments adopt a new approach to returning management 

authority to States since Congress found the previous approach 

i nvol ving Adminstrati ve Law Judge (ALJ ) hearings and compliance 

with National Environmental Pol icy Act (NEPA) procedures to be 

unworkable. The new approach creates a system that is more likely 

to achieve the return of marine mammal management authority to the 

States. 

In May 1982, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

published corresponding proposed regulations that provide for the 

transfer of marine mammal management authority to the States. 

These proposed regulations establish procedures for the transfer 

of management authority as well as the form and minimum 

requirements of a state appl ication, the re1 ationship between 

Federal and State wildlife agencies before and after transfer 

authority, and procedures for the revocation and return to NMFS of 

management authority. Final regulations are due to be published 

in May 1983. 

General Permits - Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During 

Commercial Fishing Operations 

A general permit system established under the Act authorizes 

the incidental taking of marine mammals by domestic and foreign 

fishermen during commerci a1 fishing operations. General permits 

are issued to foreign fishing associations whose nations have a 

Governing International Fishery Agreement (GIFA) with the United 

States that allows them to fish in the U.S. fishery conservation 

zone. Tables 1 and 2 in the Appendix include a list of foreign 

and domes+ic fishing corporations with perrnits,and the numbers of 

marine mammals they are a1 lowed to take. 
Domestic f i s hermen, except those i nvol ved i n the ye1 1 owf i n 

tuna fishery, are allowed to apply for a certificate of inclusion 

under general permits granted to the Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen's Association. Those permits have been extended to 

December 31, 1983, and a1 low a take of 2,480 animals each year. 

The extension was made pending this agency's issuance of final 

regul at i ons concerni ng a small i ncident a1 take of non-depl eted 

marine mammal s by commerci a1 fishermen. 

The requirements for domestic fishermen to obtain a 

certificate of inclusion have been simp1 ified and the previously 

required $10 fee has been waived to encourage fishermen to provide 

data on the incidental catch of marine mammals. 

The Northwest Region issued 1,384 certificates to State 

licensed and tribal Indian fishermen in 1982 bringing the total 

number of certificate holders in the region to 4,384. The large 

number of certificate holders has enhanced the cooperation of 

fishermen in submitting reports on incidental takes and has 

augmented the Washington State Department of Game's study on 

marine mammal/fisheries interactions. 

In the domestic fishery, the permit involving the largest 

numbers of animals was issued to the American Tunaboat Association 

to take 20,500 porpoise each year from 1981 through 1985. In the 

foreign fishery, Japan takes the most marine mammals; for 1983, 

this includes 5,500 Dall's porpoise, 25 northern sea lions, and 

450 northern fur seals. 

Scientific Research and Public Display Permits 

One exception to the moratorium on taking is the provision 

that allows permits to be issued for taking or importing marine 

mammals for scientific research or public display. Three steps 

must be taken before a permit can be granted. 

1. Receipt and initial review of the application by NMFS, 

publication of a notice of receipt in the Federal 

Register, and transmittal of the application to the Marine 

Mammal Commission for review; 
2. A 30-day review of the application by NMFS, the 

Commission, the public, and other Federal agencies; and 

3. Final processing by NMFS, including consideration of 

comments, and approval or denial of the application. 

During the past year, 59 applications were considered. Of 

these, 42 have been resolved; 32 scientific research permits were 

issued, and 11 publ5c display permits were issued. There were 121 

modifications, amendments, or authorizations for take or related 

activities. 

Over the past 10 years, NMFS has added various means to 

satisfy the requirements of the Act other than regular permits. 

These include Letters of Agreement, modifications to permits, and 

authorizations. A1 1 of these have increased the agency's 

flexibility and provided for faster response since the 

administrative process has been shortened. For example, during 

our last reporting year, 32 permits were issued, yet 121 

modifications, authorizations, and changes to permits were made. 

Letters of Agreement are a response to the availability of 

many rehabilitated beached and stranded animals and the need to 

find permanent homes. In most cases, it is unnecessary to take an 

animal from the wild since these beached and stranded animals can 

satisfy public display and research needs. Therefore, the Letters 

of Agreement were developed as an easier alternative to permits 

since no actual taking is involved. Also, these are usually 

handled by our Regional offices which, again, take less time. 

Modifications to permits represent a way to approve a permit 

type authorization without actually having to apply for a 

permit. A modification is any change in terms or conditions of a 

permit or i nformati on suppl i ed in the permit appl ication. 

Although many of these are subject to a 30-day review by the 

public and the Marine Mammal Commission, the amount of information 

required is greatly reduced and review time usually shorter than a 

regul ar permit . Authori.zations represent a way to carry out additional 

activities under an existing permit. These involve less 

substantial changes than modifications. Transporting an animal 

- 
from one faci 1 i t y t o another would probably require only an 

authorization while a change that involved more jeopardy to the 

animal would require a modification. 

Another change made over the years to streamline,the permit 

process includes revised application instructions. In addition to 

clarifying these instructions, we now include background 

information on how to modify a permit or obtain a Letter of 

Agreement, and how to comply with related Acts such as the Animal 

Welfare Act and the Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Under the 

Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS), Department of Agriculture, is responsible for the 

humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of marine 

mammals. Standards developed by APHIS are incorporated as 

conditions to a1 1 permits that involve captive marine mammals. 

The following tables appear in the appendix and provide a 

detailed overview of the permit program: 

common and scientific names of marine mammals requested in 

scientific researchlpubl i c displ ay permit appl i cati ons 

(table 3); 

summary of perrni t appl i cat i ons (t abl e 4) ; 

cetacean take requested in scientific research/public 

display permit applications (table 5); 

pi nni ped take requested in scientific researchlpubl ic 

display permit applications (table 6); 

cetacean take authorized by scientific research/publ ic 

display permits (table 7); 

pi nni ped take authorized by scientific researchlpubl ic 

display permits (table 8); 

au horized a 

ce F aceans (FabPefS); permanent removal from the wildauthorized take for permanent removal from the wildpi nni peds (tab1 e 10) ; 

Marine Mammal Stranding Network 

- NMFS encourages its regions to develop and assist in 

operating a Marine Mammal Stranding Network. The Regional 

Networks include individuals and organizations that cooperate with 

a NMFS coordinator. Authorized members of a network may collect 

scientific specimen materials, record the event with the Regional 

Coordinator, and are obligated to assist local and Federal 

authorities in the disposal of the animals. Records of these 

strandings are no longer forwarded to 'the Scientific Event Alert 

Network (SEAN), Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., which 

pub1 ished a monthly report and maintained a central computer file, 

since that program was canceled in 1982.. 

In the Northwest Region, Stranding Network Primary Response 

Centers were identified during meetings of the principal 

participants of the Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

Each Center is responsible for all strandings in their respective 

area. Notification of stranded animals is forwarded to the 

appropriate Response Center by State enforcement agencies who 

normally receive the calls from the general public. 

The Northwest Region's network is especially active in April 

and June because of the harbor seal pupping season. Many healthy 

harbor seal pups are removed from the beaches by well-meaning 

people who be1 ieve the pups are abandoned and aren't aware that 

they have eliminated the possibility of the pup being reunited 

with its mother. Press releases and public information brochures 

are distributed during the pupping season advising concerned 

citizens not to touch the animals and to call a State enforcement 

agency who will in turn notify network participants who are 

qua1 ified to determine whether or not the animal is indeed 

abandoned or sick and are trained to handle the pups. 

The Southwest Region made major progress toward 

reorganization of the California Marine Mammal Stranding Network 

by dividing the coast into six geographic sections and holding 

organizational meetings in each section. Network members were 

identified as cooperators (those agencies reporting stranding 

events) or participants (those responding to an event) and 

assisted with interpretations of their roles and 

responsi bi 1 i ties. Over 120 persons have been identified as 

cooperators. Letters of Authorization were developed and have 

been issued to six rehabilitation centers and fifteen scientific 

institutions. Also, a directory of Network members has been 

issued, and a stranding event report form, consistent with that 

formerly used by the SEAN, is now in use throughout the State. 

Information from the reports is received monthly at the Southwest 

Region Office where it is stored in a computer file using a 

program developed by Southwest Fisheries Center personnel. The 

printout, identical in format to the SEAN bulletin, will be 

distributed throughout the Network. The Region is planning to 

enter the data and analyze a seven year backlog of stranding 

reports. 
In the Southeast Region, the Marine Mammal Stranding and 

Salvage Network operates through a contractor and has expanded 

considerably since 1980. It includes State and Federal 

biologists, 1 aw enforcement agents, private aquaria personnel, and 

other interested persons. In 1982, a total of 157 cetaceans 

representing at least 15 species were reported. 

Summary of Cetacean 'Strandi ngs and Sight i ngs Reported to the 

Southeast Marine Mammal Stranding and Salvage Network in 1982. 

NUMBER PERCENT 

REPORTED OF TOTAL 

Tursiops truncatus - At1 antic bottlenose do1 phin 89 

Kogia breviceps - Pygmy sperm whale 2 3 

Bal aena gl aci a1 is - Right whale 

Grampus griseus - Risso's dolphin 

Kogia simus - Dwarf sperm whale 4 

Mesoplodon europaeus - Antillean beaked whale 4 

Physeter macrocepbal us - Sperm whale 4 

Globicephal a macrorhynchus - Short finned pi lot whale 3 

Zi phi us cavirostri s - Goosebeaked whale 3 

Stenel 1 a frontal is - Bridled do1 phi n 2 

Stenel 1 a spp. 2 

be1 phi nus del phis - Common do1 phi n 1 

Feresa attenuata - Pygmy killer whale 

'~seudorca crassidens - Fa1 se ki 1 ler whale 

Unidentified 1 arge whale 

TOTAL 157 

'~entative identification 
Law Enforcement 

Under the MMPA, it is illegal to take or import marine 

mammals or their parts or products unless an exception has been 

made. The moratorium is enforced by NMFS speci a1 agents and State 

enforcement officers under contract to NMFS. California is the 

only state that has a contract with NMFS at this time. 

Most of the 186 a1 leged viol at ions of the Act investigated by 

NMFS and State enforcement personnel in the past year involved the 

illegal importation of marine mammal parts and products. However, 

a significant number of viol ati ons i nvol ved i 11 egal taki ngs (39) 

and tuna-porpoise incidents (20). The Balelo decision (see Legal 

Actions), which enjoins NMFS from using observer data gathered on 

tuna purse seine vessels for enforcement purposes, has resulted in 

a significant decline in cases involving the incidental take of 

porpoise in the yellowfin tuna fishery. 

In Hawaii, extensive patrol and public awareness work was 

again devoted to protecting the humpback whale during its calving 

and breeding season. 

A native American residing in the State of Washington was 

apprehended for the unlawful possession and transportation of 

marine mammals. The suspect has raised the defense that Tribal 

Treaty rights allow the taking and utilization of marine mammals 

by native Americans. This case is waiting prosecution by the 

Department of Justice. 

In Alaska, agents spent considerable effort in monitoring the 

bowhead whale subsistence hunt. Also, in a case still pending, an 

undercover operation led to the seizure of about $10,000 worth of 

whale teeth and walrus tusks destined for illegal sale. 
PART I1 - LEGAL ACTIONS 

American Tunaboat Association v. Baldrige, (9th Circuit) Civil 

Number 82-5588. 

In this action, the American Tunaboat Association (ATA) 

challenged the Administrator's refusal to follow the 

Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) recommendations on three specific 

scientific findings in the Agency's final decision in its 1980 

tuna/porpoise rulemaking held in conjunction with the ATA's 

appl icat i on for a general permit authorizing the incident a1 take 

of porpoise during commerci a1 purse-sei ne fishing for tuna. The 

case was brought despite the fact that the Agency's decision 

authorized a quota of 20,500 porpoises for each of the years 1981- 

1985, and a general permit covering these years was issued. The 

portions of the Agency's final decision challenged by the ATA were 

1) whether the calculation of mean school size by the Agency 

should have used data obtained by agency observers aboard tuna 

boats, 2) whether an incorrect premise, that observers on aeri a1 

surveys could be expected to see all large porpoise schools on the 

track1 ine, was used in the agency's calculation of the density of 

porpoise schools, and 3) whether the area inhabited by porpoise 

was larger than the value used in the agency's analysis. 

On March 10, 1982, the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of California entered an order declaring that the 

determinations of the ALJ on the three disputed matters were the 

best available scientific evidence within the meaning of the Act 

and that the Administrator should have accepted them. The Agency 

has appealed the decision of the district court on the grounds 

that the Administrator's findings were supported by the 

substant i a1 expert opinion evidence in the administrative 

record. The case has been fully briefed and argued before the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Balelo v. Baldrige, (9th Cir.) Civ. No. 81-5807, 81-5806; United 

States v. $50,178.80, (9th Cir.) Civ. No. 82-5433. 

Bale10 v. Baldrige also arises out of the 1980 tunalporpoise 

rulemakinq. In this class action, commerci a1 tuna fishermen 

chall engea the Agency's statutory and constitutional authority to 

promulgate the regulation (50 CFR 216.24(f)) a1 1 owing the Agency 

to require placement of a NMFS observer on board a tuna boat as a 
condition to obtaining a certificate of inclusion. On January 5, 

1983, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated 

the regulation as being beyond the statutory authority granted by 

Congress to the Secretary. The Ninth Circuit upheld the lower 

Court's decision by finding that observer placement constitutes a 

search for fourth amendment purposes, that the "plain view" 

doctrine does not apply in this cases ijnd that ,the',per,v*asively . 

regul ated industry except ion to the' warrant requirement does 'not 

apply in the absence of specific statutory authority. The Ninth 

Circuit went beyond the decision of the District Court by finding 

that the regulation was invalid for all purposes including the 

collection of scientific data. The lower Court had held that only 

the use of observer data for enforcement purposes was beyond the 

Agency's authority. 

Balelo was consolidated for the purposes of appeal with 

United States v. $50,178.50 (the "Willa G." case). In this 

action, the agency sought forfeiture of that portion of a vessel's 

catch of tuna obtained from unlawful sets made on prohibited 

stocks or species or porpoise. The Ninth Circuit reversed the 

holding of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of 

California and found that even observer data gathered prior to the 

Court's decision in Bale10 must be excluded in forfeiture actions. 

The Agency has petitioned for a rehearing in the Ninth 

Circuit in both cases. 

Friends of Animals v. Baldrige (D.D.C) Civ. No. 81-1547 

In this action, Friends of Animals, Inc. sought a declaration 

that the 3-year permit for the incidental take of Dall's porpoise 

issued by NOAA under the MMPA to the Federation of Japan Salmon 

Fisheries Cooperation Associations is invalid. The Agency 

approved the permit authorizing the take of 5,500 porpoise in the 

course of the Japanese North Pacific high seas salmon fishing 

operations on May 15, 1981, and substantially accepted the 

findings of the ALJ. Although the Court was concerned about the 

adequacy of the data on which the permit was issued, the Judge 

upheld the permit in his decision of May 18, 1982. The Court 

found that although each variable that went into the ALJ's 

determination that the taking of 5,500 porpoise would not be to 

the disadvantage of the species was subject to scientific 

uncertainty, the scientific assumptions and estimates adopted by 

the ALJ were the best evidence available. Although the Court was 

concerned about the adequacy of the data, it held that the 
decision to issue the permit was based on substantial evidence and 

must, therefore, be upheld even if the Court would not have 

reached the result that the agency did if the issue had been 

before the Court for determination. In an area where complex 

scientific judgments must be made on limited evidence, the Court 

held that it would not substitute its judgment for that of the 

agency, especi a1 ly when the wei ght of expert opinion supported 

issuance of a permit. 

PART I11 - MARINE MAMMALS AND FISHERIES INTERACTIONS 

When marine mammals interact with sport and commercial 

fisheries during fishing operations, they are sometimes killed, 

injured, or harassed. On the other hand, marine mammals take or 

damage fish caught on lines or fn traps and nets; they damage 

fishing gear during these encounters or when they accident a1 ly 

become entangled; and, sometimes, they compete with fishermen for 

the same fish and shellfish resources. 

Before the Act, sport and bounty hunting and various forms of 

harassment were used to control the distribution, abundance, and 

behavior of marine mammals. The Act imposed a moratorium on these 

activities and, in recent years, animals in certain areas 

apparently have become more numerous and bolder in their 

interactions with fishermen and fishing gear. The most acute 

problems seem to involve seats and sea lions in several areas of 

Alaska, Washington, and Oregon. 

The Northwest and A1 aska Fisheries Center (NWAFC ) is studying 

the jncidental catch of northern sea ljons by U.S. fishermen in 

the pollock joint venture fishery in Shelikof Strait, Alaska. 

Since this joint venture fishery is expanding each year, there is 

a need to assess the level of sea lion take and the impact of the 

take to 1 ocal sea 1 ion popul ati ons. As part of their broad Bert ng 

Sea research program, the NWAFC a1 so studies the overall impact of 

comnerci a1 fishing on marine mamnal stocks in the Bering Sea. 

Contracts with States io Study Marine Mamal/Flsheries Problems 

Col umbi a River Study 

Since 1980, NMFS has contibuted funds to the Washington 

Department of Fish and Game to study marjne mammals-fisheries 

interactions in the Columbi a River and adjacent waters. Part1 a1 

support was also provided by the Columbia River Estuary Data 

Development Program and the Marine Mama1 Comni ssion. 

After three years of study, researchers have found that 

mari ne mammal If isheri es i nteract ions occurred 1 n 62 percent of the 

salmon galnet fishing trips in the study area, (lower Columbia 

River, Grays Harbor, and Willipa Bay), and these interactions 

resulted in damage to fish catches, fishing gear, and/or marine 

mammals in 36 percent of all the fishing trSps sampled. Harbor 
seals were the primary cause of fish damage in all estuaries and 

seasons. The harbor seal population in the study area has 

increased at an annual rate of about 11 per cent between 1976 and 

1982. Researchers have also found significant damage by seals to 

adult salmonids indicating that seals are hunting free-swimming 

salmonids in river channels. Not enough is known at this time to 

estimate the predation rate on return adult salmoninds or the 

mortality rates of the injured salmonids that survived the seal 

attacks. 

The State of Washington currently has a contract from NMFS to 

identify and evaluate the most effective methods for mitigating 

marine mammal /fisheries conflict in the Columbia River; this 

research is expected to be completed in 1983. 

Gulf of Maine 

An NMFS contract to study the extent of marine mammalfisheries conflicts in the Gulf of Maine was awarded to the 

University of Maine in May 1980 and has continued through 1982. 

They have studied the distribution and abundance, habitat use 

patterns, and population discreteness of harbor seals in the Gulf 

as well as the degree of harassment by man. The extent and impact 

of all marine mammal-fisheries interactions in the Gulf is also 

being investigated by the University under this contract. These 

interactions include incidental take, subsistence take, and 

economic impact on fisheries, and are expected to form the basis 

for management'decisions regarding the ability of New England 

fisheries to be included under the new incidental take exemption 

amendments to the MMPA. 

Cal i forni a 

Under contract to the Southwest Region and Fisheries Center, 

the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) continued to 

investigate marine mammal/fishery interactions and to collect data 

required for the assessment of the status of the harbor seal 

population. In 1982, efforts were directed at mitigating marine 

mammal/fishery interactions in the Klamath River salmon fisheries 

and in the Southern California charter boat fishery. 
PART V - INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES 

The MMPA directed the Department of Commerce to seek to 

further the protection and conservation of marine mammals under 

existing international agreements and to take the initiative 

necessary to negotiate additional agreements required to achieve 

the purposes of the Act. The NMFS participates in many 

international programs and activities to carry out the intent of 

the Act. 

International Whaling Commission (IWC) 

Cessation. At the 34th annual meeting of the International 

Whaling Commission held July 1982 in Brighton, England, the United 

States' 10-year effort to bring about a moratorium on commerci a1 

whaling was finally realized. The Commission, by a vote of 25 to 

7 with five countries abstaining, adopted a commerci a1 cessation 

to take effect in the 1985/86 pelagic and 1986 coastal whaling 

seasons. This decision was taken with the understanding that 

catch 1 imits will be established during the 3-year transition 

period based on the recommendations of the Scientific Committee 

and the provisions of the current management procedures. The 3- 

year postponement will provide the affected countries the time 

necessary to cease whaling in an orderly fashion. The cessation 

of commercial whaling is to be reviewed by 1990 to determine its 

effect on whale stocks. 

Although four nations, Japan, Norway, Peru, and the Soviet 

Union, have filed formal objections to the Commission's decision, 

the U.S. supports the IWC decision and the steps adopted to 

achieve it. Also, the affected countries have been advised that 

the United States will take advantage of all laws and regulations 

to ensure that the cessation is implemented. 

Two U.S. laws have provisions that are linked to whale 

conservation practices of other nations. Under the Pel ly 

Amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act, the U.S. may embargo 

imports of fish products from countries whose nationals are 

certified by the Secretary of Commerce as conducting fishing 

operations (including whal i ng) in a manner or under circumstances 

that dim'?nish the effectiveness of international conservation 

programs such as the IWC. The Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the 
MFCMA mandates a reduction by at least 50 percent in the 

allocation of fish that may be caught in the U.S. Fishery 

Conservation Zone by any nation that is certified by the 

Secretary. This issue was raised in December 1982 when Congress 

approved the proposed Governing International FisheryAgreement 

between the United States and Japan. At that time, the potential 

adverse impacts of Japan's objection on U.S. Japanese re1 ations, 

including fishing allocations in the FCZ, was noted. 

Catch Limits. Also, at the 34th annual meeting, the 

Commission set commercial catch limits resulting in a reduction 

from the 14,070 limit set at last year's meeting to 12,371 for the 

upcoming 1982/83 pelagic and 1983 coastal seasons. A table 

reflecting the newly established catch limits and the trend in 

catch limits is included in the Appendix. 

Cold Harpoon. At the 1981 annual meeting, the Commission 

voted to ban using the cold harpoon to kill minke whales; the ban 

would become effective with the 1982/83 pel agic and the 1983 

coastal seasons. Brazil, Ice1 and, Japan, Norway and the U.S.S.R. 

filed objections. There were no proposals to modify the ban at 

the 1982 meeting, and the Commission adopted a resolution calling 

on those nations to withdraw their objection. However, Japan's 

objection may be resolved since it is complying with the ban in 

its 1982/1983 pelagic operations now under way and taking steps 

toward full compliance in the next coastal whaling season. Also, 

under a bilateral agreement, NMFS has stationed an IWC observer at 

Japanese 1 and whal i ng stations. 

Aboriginal Whaling. As a result of U.S. efforts since 1979, 

the IWC established management principles and procedures to govern 

aboriginal subsistence whaling which, in the U.S., involves the 

take of bowhead whales by A1 aska natives. The Commission 

established a standing subcornittee of the Technical Committee to 

review aboriginal subsistence whal i ng needs and provide 

information and advice to the Commission in a way similiar to the 

Scientific Committee. Taking whales for aboriginal subsistence 

purposes will be allowed in 1984 and after only at levels that the 

IWC finds consistent with criteria set by these committees. 

Antarctic Minke Whale Assessment Cruise. Intensive 

commerci a1 exploitation of mi nke whal es beqan i n the Antarctic 

during the 1971-72 whaling season and continues under regulations 

adopted by the IWC. Since population estimates are not reliable, 

the IWC initiated a tagging and survey program under the auspices 
of the IWC International Decade of Cetacean Research during the 

1978-79 whaling season to provide a more reliable basis for 

management decisions. The survey, conducted from ships provided 

by Japan and the Soviet Union, continued during the 1982-83 

whaling season and involved scientists from several countries, 

including the United States. Results of the assessment will be 

provided to the IWC's Scientific Committee and used to improve 

management of minke whales in the Antarctic. 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) 

For its 1982 meeting, the IATTC staff prepared an analysis 

more detailed than in previous years on the estimates of total 

annual porpoi se mort a1 i ty incident a1 to purse sei ni ng 

operations. Mortal i ty i nfl icted by the U.S. registered fleet 

between 1979 and 1981 appears to have remained re1 atively constant 

at a level of about 16,000 to 19,000 porpoises each year of which 

about ha1 f were offshore spotted porpoises. Estimates of 

mortality by the non-U.S. fleet are not reliable and will remain 

so until a large proportion of trips from the non-U.S. fleet can 

be sampled. 

The Commission's efforts to sample purse seine trips from the 

international fleet in 1982 continued to encounter obstacles. As 

of October 1982, only six non-U.S. trips were completed or in 

progress. In addition to the difficulty of achieving full 

participation in the program, other problems include vessel 

registry transfers, internal difficulties experienced by 

participating nations, vessels selected for sampl ing, and del ays 

i n selected vessel departures due to extended un1 oading times. 

The purse seine catch of yellowfin associated with porpoise in the 

eastern tropical Pacific is estimated to be 38,182 short tons or 

52.3 percent of the total yellowfin catch, the highest amount 

since 1977. 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) 

During the 1982 annual meeting of the Commission, discussions 

on marine mammals centered on gear modifications now being 

developed by Japan and the need' for data from the Japanese 1 andbased salmon fleet. Currently, U.S.. observers are pl aced aboard 

vessels of the Japanese motherslhip salmon fleet, and U.S. 

scientists be1 ieve that popul at ion estimates ,and reproductive 

patterns for the marine mammals, especi a1 ly D a l l ' s porpoise, taken 

incidentally in this fishery could be more accurate if data were 
received from the 1 and-based gil lnetters as we1 1 as from 

mothershi ps. 

In December 1982, the U.S. Congress extended for three years 

the marine mammal permit by which Japanese salmon fishermen take 

Dall's porpoise incidentally caught in their mothership fishery. 

The extension carried with it requirements for gear modification, 

continued commitment to research, and adequate funding for 

research activities by Japan. 

North Pacific Fur Seal Commission (NPFSC) 

Much of the 1982 annual meeting involved a discussion on fur 

seal popul ation trends and their possible causes. Perhaps the 

most important factor in recent changes in population is the 

reduced survival of youn seals at sea. One of the primary causes 

contributing to this dec 7 ine may be entanglement of fur seals in 

debris consisting mainly of fragments of fishing nets. However, 

scientists agreed that the problem of entanglement and the 

observed declines in pup production are not related to the harvest 

of sub-adult males, and, therefore, no change in the existing 

harvest regime was propo$ed. The Commission agreed to write to 

all countries fishing in,the North Pacific to alert them to the 

problem of entanglement. In addition, the Commission reviewed its 

scientific research program and harvest levels for the Soviet 

Union and the United States. 

US-USSR Marine Mammal Project, Environmental Protection Agreement 

The objective of this project is to promote joint research 

and exchange of information by U.S. and Soviet scientists on the 

biology, ecology and popul at ion dynamics of marine mammals of 

concern to both countries. In 1982, nine American and six Soviet 

scientists took part in exchanges for field or laboratory studies 

or research cruises on ships of the other country. 

In January and February 1982, two Soviet scientists 

participated in studies on non-metrical characteristics of small 

cetaceans at the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, Calif. 

and Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, San Diego, Calif. 

In April and May, two Soviet scientists worked with Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game scientists to investigate lair 

selection ecology among ringed seals. 
A comprehensive and successful joint cruise investigating 

bowhead whale distribution and walrus herd composition was 

undertaken during July and August in the Chukchi Sea. Six 

American scientists joined their Soviet counterparts on the Soviet 

whale catcher boat KS ENTUZIAST. While no bowhead whales were 

encountered (four recorded, but be1 ieved to be 

misidentifications), age and sex composition data were obtained on 

numerous herds of walrus along th~e ice edge in the northern and 

western Chukchi Sea; 

Also during July and August, two Soviet scientists 

participated in a U.S. cruise on the NOAA R/V DAVID STARR JORDAN 

(working with scientists from the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Center) 

in the eastern tropical Pacific. The cruise, working between 

Hawaii and San Diego, tested meth~ds to improve precision of 

calcul ati ng positions of dolphins schools in re1 ation to survey 

vessels, studied distribution and abundance of coastal cetaceans 

and examined the feasibility of ulsing color patterns to 

differenti ate stocks. 

In September, a U.S. scientist worked on marine mammal 

parasites with Soviet colleagues at Simferopol University in the 

Ukraine, U.S.S.R. Their work proved extremely productive and they 

are preparing a monograph of parasites of marine mammals of the 

Northern Hemisphere. The study will take at least two years and 

probably involve a return visit by Soviet scientists to the United 

States. 

During October and November, two U.S. scientists worked on 

biology and taxonomy of= seals and walrus using osteol ogical 

specimens at the Soviet TINRO Laboratory at Magadan. Their work 

included a short cruise to observe marine mammals in the northern 

part of the Okhotsk Sea and extenbive discussions on aerial and 

shipboard survey method01 ogy. I 

PART V - MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS 

Cetaceans 

Bowhead Whale 

Management 

Under the MMPA, A1 aska natives are allowed to hunt the 

endangered bowhead whale for subsistence purposes. However, since 

the United States follows the quota restrictions set by the IWC 

for this species, regulations managing the hunt are implemented 

under the Whaling Convention Act of 1949. 

For 1981 through 1983, the IWC set an overall quota of 45 

bowhead whales landed or 65 struck with no more than 17 to be 

1 anded in any one year. In 1981, NOAA and the A1 aska Eskimo 

Whal i ng Commission (AEWC) concl uded a cooperative agreement 

regarding management of bowhead whale subsistence hunting during 

1981 and 1982; this agreement has been extended through 1987. In 

February 1982, the NMFS Regional Director in Alaska negotiated an 

amendment to the agreement concerning the management, inspection, 

and reporting of bowhead whale subsistence harvests. The 

cooperative agreement established a strike limit for 1982 of 19 

whales and provided for civil penalties in the event more than 16 

whales were landed. A quota of 1)3 strikes has been agreed to for 

the 1983 season. 

The Eskimos reached the 1982 strike quota during fall hunting 

at Kaktovik and Nuiqsut where two of three whales struck were 

1 anded bringing the annual totals to eight 1 anded and eleven 

struck but lost. During the spri~ng hunt, NMFS agents were based 

in Gambell/Savoonga, Point Hope and Barrow, and, during the fall 

hunting, they were in Kaktovik and Barrow. For the first time 

since 1959, no whales were 1 anded in Barrow. 
TABLE 2, Annual Quotas and Catch of Bowhead Whales 1978-1982 

~uot a' Actual Take 

Landed Strikes Landed 1 ost strikes 

The State of Alaska, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, 

the North Slope Borough, the oil and gas industry, NMFS, and the 

Department of Interior (DOI) have interests and responsibil ities 

in protecting bowhead whales. A1 though NMFS has 1 ead-agency 

responsibility under both the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the 

Endangered Species Act and is responsible for carrying out studies 

of the bowhead whale population, the DO1 is responsible for 

developing information needed to assess and mitigate any possible 

adverse impacts of OCS activities on the bowhead and its habitat. 

Research 

NMFS's bowhead whale research program is carried out at its 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML ). The 1982 spri ng bowhead 

whale census was conducted April 11 through June 2. The North 

Slope Borough, with the assistance of the NMML, made the census 

and col 1 ected biological specimens. 

1. Quotas were first set for this population in 1978. 

A landed whale counts as al strike. Hunting is to cease when either the 

landed quota is reached or when the quota of total strikes is reached. 

L' Based on IWC quotbs, totals for 1981, 1982, 1983 combined 

cannot exceed 45 1 anded or 65 struck. 
Analysis of four years of Yata collected from 1978 to 1981 

indicated that the revised best minimum estimate of current 

population size is between 3,85 (range 3,390 to 4,325). Results 

of the spring 1982 census and a tumn 1981 census sponsored by the 

oil industry also suggest that he population size is near 4,000 

animals. 

I 

Research on ageing, by using biochemical methods to study eye 

lens nuclei and laminations of the tympanic bull ae ("ear bone") 

continues. Preliminary analysis indicates that female bowheads 

become sexually mature when they are about 46 feet long, gestation 

may last 13 months, females give birth every 3 to 5 years, and 

conception and calving occur primarily in the spring. 

Gray Whale 

Management 

The population of the gray whale expanded to a point where 

the animal was removed from the IWC's "protected" status in 

1978. However, the continued increase in its population may be 

adversely affected by such human activities as whal e-watchi ng and 

oil and gas development. This animal, which continues to be 

listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, migrates 

along the West Coast and winter? in the 7 agoons of Baja, California 

where it calves and breeds and $pends summers in Arctic waters 

feeding. 

Guidelines for gray whale watching along the California coast 

were included in a press release issued by the Southwest Region 

and the Southwest Fisheries Center prior to migration season. 

Posters were also distributed to marinas, yacht clubs, and whale 

watchi ng groups. , 

Research 

The 3-year census of gray whales in Unimak Pass, Alaska has 

been completed. Also, studies on the feeding, ecology, migration, 

and distribution of these populgtions in Alaska have been 

completed. The results of both studies will be included in a book 

about gray whales. 
Figure 6 - Three humpback whales, known locally as Salt, Snake-eyes, and Lightning , 

cooperatively feed for sand lance on Stellwagen Bank off Gloucester, 

Mass. Photo by Mason Weinrich, Cetacean Research Unit, Gloucester 

Fi shermen ' s Museum. 
Humpback Whal e 

Management 

Of special concern to NMFS is the North Pacific population of 

humpback whales which includes only about 1,000 animals. In the 

summer, a portion of this stock spends time in Glacier Bay 

National Park and other areas in southeast A1 aska. Most of the 

North Pacific population winters in the waters around the main 

is1 ands of Hawaii. Activities in both areas, including commerci a1 

and recreational vessel traffic offshore oi 1 and gas development, 

sport and commerci a1 fisheries, 1 and coast a1 development , present 

threats to this species. I 

In Hawaii, the concerns fort the species are related to whalewatching activities; the effects of operating an inter-is1 and 

hydrofoil service through humpback whale habitats; criteria for 

determining activities which constitute harassment; and the need 

to educate boat and aircraft operators about humpback whales. In 

response to problems created by whale watching, the NMFS Southwest 

Region issued a Notice of Interpretation in 1979 for the "taking 

by harassment" of humpback whal s in the Hawaii an Is1 ands. This 

notice continues to be in effec . In addition, a brochure that 

explains what harassment means 1 s continually distributed to 

private boaters, whale watchers, air1 ines serving Maui , and the 

general public. Special agents were assigned temporary duty in 

Hawaii to help enforcement efforts and increase public awareness 

through increased public contact. These efforts also have been 

aided by the operation of a NMFS patrol vessel. The number of 

compl ai nts of a1 1 eged harassment of humpback whal es decl i ned in 

the 1981-82 season. This may b due to a better understanding by 

whale watchers and the public a 9 out activities that harass 

humpback whales. The NMFS will to place special emphasis 

on monitoring research activiti 

The Western Pacific Program Office assisted in the Section 7 

consult at ion process concerni ng humpback whal es under the 

Endangered Species Act. Federal agencies in consultation with 

NMFS reviewed their activities to ensure that they would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of humpback whales. During 

these consultations, we provided recommendations that would he1 p 

Federal bgenci es meet their obl i gat i ons under. the ESA. 
In A1 aska, 20 to 25 humpback whales were observed each year 

in Glacier Bay National d ark; however, the number of whales and 

the length of time spentin the Bay dropped in 1978 and 1979. The 

National Park Service de ermined that increasing vessel traffic 

might have been partial1 responsible for this situation and 

established emergency re ulations to restrict vessel traffic. In 

1981, Congress appropria ed special funds to the National Park 

Service to address the p 1 oblem, and the Service transferred the 

funds to NMFS to carry oqt the studies. 

Research 

The 1982 field studies on Glacier Bay humpback whales were 

completed in September. The NMFS Auke Bay Laboratory, which is 

conducting a prey distridution and abundance study, is analyzing 

acoustic survey data at the NMML in Seattle and fish/zooplankton 

sampling data in Auke Bay, Alaska. Behavior data, focusing on 

whales' responses to ves els, are being analyzed by a University 

of Hawaii contract study 5 team in Honolulu. This analysis includes 

acoustic monitoring data collected during the field season by an 

acoustic engineering con ul tant and radio tracking data coll ected 

by a team of biologists ! rom the University of Hawaii, NMML, and 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 

At a meeting held at the NMML in December 1982, contractors 

compared prel iminary findings and discussed joint analysis. 

Ongoing projects at the NMML on humpback whales include collection 

and analysis of sightings data from the Platforms of Opportunity 

Program; photographic identification of whales to provide 

information on distribution, abundance, and movements; and 

literature review of humpback whale feeding habits and behavior. 

North At1 antic Cetaceans 

Management 

The NMFS Northeast Region reviewed the data regarding the 

distribution and abundance of large endangered species that 

inhabit the U.S. east coast from Cape Hatteras, N. Carolina to the 

U.S./Canadian border. Most of the data is the result of three 

years of survey effort carried out by the Cetacean Turtle 

Assessment Program (CETA~). The University of Rhode I sl and, under 

contract from the Bureau of Land Management completed its work and 

submitted a final report in December 1982. 
The Region has used the CETAP Reports, along with data from 

other research programs, to assess the potential impacts of oil 

and gas leasing exploration activities on the Mid and North 

At1 antic Outer Continent a1 She1 f (OCS) under the consultation and 

review provisions of the Endangere Species Act and National 

Environmental Policy Act. Also, data has been collected and 

assimilated on the inshore bank ar 1 as (Stellwagen Bank in 

particular) to assess the potential affects of human activities on 

the ecosystem that supports the summer concentrations of large 

baleen whales on these banks. The CETAP data have shown 

significant concentrations of cetalceans in the Gulf of Maine, 

Georges Bank and Mid-At1 antic areqs. The data also included 

descriptions of their behavior patlterns. 

The CETAP data show heavy usq of the inshore banks a1 ong the 

southern edge of the Gulf of Main (Jeffrey's Ledge, Stellwagen 

Bank and Provincetown Slope) by h 7 mpback and fin whales from 

spring until fall. The data also suggest that the Great South 

Channel, a bathymetric feature resembling a funnel located between 

Georges Bank and Cape Cod, is used by many large cetaceans as they 

migrate to and from the Gulf of Maine. 

The data show concentrations of sperm whales, pilot whales, 

bottlenose do1 phi ns and various pdl agi c do1 phi ns a1 ong the 1,000 

meter contour from Cape Hatteras rlorth to the southern margin of 

Georges Bank. 

The New England Aquarium, under contract to the NMFS and the 

World Wildlife Fund, has described the repeated use of the lower 

Bay of Fundy (near Grand Manan ~sliand) by the severely depleted 

North Atlantic right whale. For three successive years, these 

surveys have revealed several cow/calf pairs using this region 

from July through September. Right whale mating behavior has also 

been consistently observed in the lower Bay of Fundy in the summer 

and fa1 1. 

Research 

The CETAP surveys represent the first'major effort to gather 

information on all cetaceans found on the Northeast Region's 

continental shelf. The final report of the 3-year program will 

serve as a-base1 i ne characterization of cetacean distribution, 

abundance, and movement patterns in the western \North At1 antic. 
The NMFS has funded several research studies not covered by 

CETAP including the following: 

o A continuing study to determine the abundance, movement 

patterns, habitat usage, and the human-re1 ated pressures on 

the population of harbor seals in the Gulf of Maine. 

o A characterization of habitat and distribution, an 

estimate of populaFion size, and an assessment of the impact 

of human activitie$ on the harbor porpoise in the Gulf of 

Maine. 

o A continuing study on the distribution and abundance of the 

North At1 antic right whale in the Lower Bay of Fundy. 

o Special studies onthe behavior of humpback whales and their 

use of the Cape Cod Bay/Stellwagen Bank area and the Mona 

Passage, Puerto Rico. 

qottlenose Do1 phi ns 

Management 

The popul ari ty of the bottlenose do1 phin for publ ic displ ay prompted the Marine Mammal Commission to recornend that NMFS set 

an annual quota for the number of animals authorized to be removed 

from populations in the Southeast Region for scientific research 

and publ ic displ ay. The number removed during any calendar year 

cannot exceed two percent of the mi nimum popul at i on in a specific 

location. 

The Southeast Region regulates the taking under permits; all 

permit holders authorized to take dolphins from the region are 

required to consult with the Regional Director about specific 

locations of take. At this time, taking is authorized only from 

the areas where quotas have been set and only until these quotas 

are reached. Also, current permits do not a1 low dolphins less 

than 6.5 feet long to be taken. 
Table 3. - Annual Quotas - At1 antic Bottlenose Do1 phins 

Quota - Area 

6 . . Florida East Coast, Indi anlBanana River Complex 

23 . . West Coast of Florida, Cparlotte Harbor north to Crystal 

River, divided into three sub-regions as follows 

10 - Tampa '~ay 

5 - Charlotte Harbor 

8 - North of Charlotte arbor to Crystal River (not including 

Tampa Bay) 

I4 

10 . . Florida Panhandle, Crystal River to Mobile Bay, with the 

following limitations: 

1 - ApalachicolaISt. Joseph Bay 

2 - DestinIFort Walton Beach 

35 . . Mississippi Sound 

17 . . Texas Coast, north of Corpus Christi Bay up to and including 

Matagorda Bay divided into two sub-regions as follows: 

5 - AransaslCopanolSan Antonio Bay Complex 

12 - Matagorda Bay I 

Research 

The Southeast Fisheries Center, through its 1 aboratories in 

Florida, North Carolina, and Mississippi, continues to assess the 

population of the bottlenose dolphin. The goals of the research 

on bottlenose dolphins are (1) to provide estimates of the 

abundance and 1 i ve-capture quota recornmendat ions for the stock(s) 

of this species occuring in southeastern U.S. jurisdictional 

waters; (2) to determine the dynamics and discreteness of alongshore and i nshore-offshore popul ations; and (3) to determine the 

validity of the 2 percent live-cbpture quota rule recommended by 

the Marine Mammal Commission. 

At the Mississippi Laboratory, research involved studies on 

the use of cryogenic branding to examine herd associations and to 

determine the discreteness of localized popul at ions of bottlenose 

do1 phins. Also, aerial surveys were made of discrete and 

1 ocal ized inshore geographical areas to develop the data base 

needed to estimate abundance in priority locations. 

At tle Mi ami Laborat.ory, research focused' on estimating 

abundance and est abl i shi ng 1 i ve-capture quota recommendations , 
conducting aerial sampling surveys that allow for region-wide 

abundance estimates, estimhting vital rate parameters to a1 low 

evaluation of the 2 percent quota rule, and examining the degree 

of genetic vari abil ity between a1 ong-shore and i nshore-offshore 

popul at i ons. I 

The Beaufort Laboratory evaluated the potential effects of 

commerci a1 fishing, industri a1 development, popul ation growth, and 

recreational activities on this species. 

In addition to research in the southeastern coastal areas, 

the Southwest Fisheries Cehter's La Joll a Laboratory has initiated 

popul ati on studies of the bouthern California coast a1 bottlenose 

dolphin to determine its population size, movement, range, herd 

composition, and reproductive rate. Boat surveys and land-based 

surveys are continuing, and aerial surveys and acoustic monitoring 

began in 1982. Preliminary work indicates that some do1 phins may 

be permanent residents of certain areas along the San Diego County 

coast. There appears to be a seasonal fluctuation in numbers of 

dolphins and herd size with the greatest numbers occurring in July 

and November and the largebt herds in February and July. 

In 1982, an aeri a1 survey made of bottlenose do1 phins along 

the California coast from the U.S.-Mexico border to off Los 

Angeles resulted in the si hting of 100 bottlenose dolphins. 

Animals were observed abou 15 miles further north than had been 

reported previously. 
Porpoise* and Comrnerci a1 Fi shi ng Operat i ons 

Porpoise and the Tuna purse-dei ne Fishery 

Management 

Regulations issued by NMFS in 1980 allow the U.S. purse-seine 

fishery for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific to take 

incidentally 20,500 porpoises each year from 1981 through 1985. A 

general permit to take porpoilses in compliance with final 

regulations and quotas was islsued to the American Tunaboat 

Associ at ion. Prel iminary estlimates indicate that 23,608 porpoises 

were killed during the 1982 fishery. Of the estimated porpoise 

mortality for 1982, 20,847, were taken from species or stocks for 

which quotas were allocated; 108 were from species or stocks for 

which quotas had not been setl; 547 were unidentified animals which 

have not yet been assigned ta categories; and 2,106 were eastern 

spinner do1 phi ns which are considered depleted and only 1 imi ted 

accidental taking is permitted. 

NMFS places observers on board tunaboats to gather 

information on the number of lporpoises taken incidentally in this 

fishery and to gather scientific information. In 1982, NMFS 

placed observers on 32 cruis 4 s aboard U.S. flag vessels and 40 

additional trips were made a oard U.S. vessels in cooperation with 

the Inter-American Tropical 4 una Commission. NMFS also made 86 

porpoise safety gear inspectilons on vessels in San Diego, Calif. 

and Panama City, Panama to mdke sure they were complying with U.S. 

regul ations. The Region held operator workshops for 16 skippers 

of tuna seiners. At this time, 141 operators hold Certificates of 

Inclusion under the general permit. 

Two lawsuits, the American Tunaboat Association v. Baldrige 

and Balelo v. Baldrige, affect the agency's ability to manage the 

incidental take of porpoises in this fishery. Both cases are . . discussed in the Legal Actioqs section of this report. 

* 

NMFS uses the term porpoise, rather than dolphin, to prevent 

confusion with the dolphin fish, an object of sport and commercial 

fishing. The common name is usedwhen discussing individual species or 

stocks, such as a eastern spinner dolphin. 
Tab1 e 4. Tot a1 incidental porpoise mortal i ty and serious in jury 

for U.S. and Non-U.S. vessels, 1971-1982 

Year U.S. Vessels Non U.S. Vessels 

246,213 15,715 

368,600 55,078 

206,697 58,276 

147,437 27,245 

166,645 27,812 

108,740 (quot a-78,000) 19,482 

25,452 (quot a-62,429) 25,901 

19,366 (quota-51,945) 11,147 

17,938 (quota-41,610) 6,837 

15,000 (quota-31,150) 27,000 

19,000 (quot a-20,500) 

23,608 (quot a-20,500 ) 

Tot a1 

Research 

The Southwest Fisheries Center is responsible for research on 

porpoises i nvol ved in the U.S. tuna purse-sei ne fishery. Since 

1971, it has carried out a series of studies directed at the 

popul ation biology of spotted and spinner do1 phi ns. Hi ghl ights 

for 1982 include biological studies, completion of a survey to 

census do1 phins along 10' N 1 ati tude, and development of 

techniques to improve the precision of estimates of population 

parameters. 

The primary objective of this research is to provide the best 

possible determinations of the status of affected porpoise stocks 

by 1985 when regulations for 1986 and beyond will be considered. 

Biological studies included del i neation of do1 phi n stocks, age 

determination, and analysis of reproduction. Two new methods are 

being investigated for delineating stocks: a nonmetrical technique 

using skull characteristics is being developed in cooperation with 

U.S.S.R. scientists and a DNA technique that allows examination of 

the degree of relatedness among dolphins from different areas is 

being tested. Preparation for readings of the age of 1,800 

samples of spotted dolpNin teeth were completed and analysis of 

the data is underway to determine growth and age-specific 

reproductive rates. ~ 
From May to August 1982, the NOAA research vessel, David 

Starr Jordan, surveyed an area of the eastern tropical Pacific to 

count do1 phins. The survey was concentrated on 10' N 1 atitude, 

and 342 marine mammal schools were sighted. 

A computerized tracking system developed to improve precision 

of sighting angles and location of marine mammal schools on vessel 

surveys was tested for the first time during the Jordan cruise. 

In the past, researchers had to rely on manual techniques for 

calculating positions of dolphin schools in relation to the 

research vessel. The new tracking system uses a computer which is 

rigged to speci a1 ly mounted, high-powered (25x) binoculars and 

gyrocompass. Observers use the binoculars to sight schools of 

do1 phins, and the computer records the position of the schools in 

relation to the line along which the ship is moving. Using the 

angle between the ship's line of travel and the position of the 

dolphins, and taking into account the swimming speed of the 

dolphins and the movement of the vessel, the computer can 

calculate the distance of the school from the ship and eliminate 

any potential distortion in the sighting data caused by the 

movement of the ship. This information is used to estimate the 

density of dolphins in a given geographical area. 

Dall 's Porpoise and the Japanese Salmon Fishery 

Management 

Under a permit issued by NMFS, the Japanese salmon mothership 

fishery is permitted to take 5,500 Dall's porpoise annually inside 

the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ). Based on our estimates, 

the total take in 1982 was 4,187 inside the FCZ. Marine mammals, 

primarily the Dall's porpoise, are taken during commercial gillnet 

operations by Japanese fishing yessels, both in and out of the 

U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone, in the North Pacific Ocean and 

Bering Sea. I 

In 1982, NMFS continued to monitor the incidental take by the 

J apanese. U. S. observers were aboard catcherboats whi 1 e the 

mothership fleets operated inside the U.S. FCZ, and observers from 

the Japan Fisheries Agency were aboard catcherboats both inside 

and outside the U.S. FCZ. Observers collected data on the dropout 

rate of jalmon during gillnet operations and on seabird 

entanglements. A cooperative research program with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service on the incidental take of seabirds during 

this fishery was implemented in 1982 and will continue in 1983. 
Research 

In May 1982, NMFS issued a scientific research permit to its 

Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center to take by killing up to 640 

adult and 320 young Dall 's porpoise over a fi ve-year period. 

However, U.S. participation in the 1982 research cruise to collect 

this information was cancelled due to public opposition against 

the kill i ng of porpoises, This cancel 1 ation occurred even though 

the method of taking was judged to meet the criteria of humaneness 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and was judged necessary to 

conduct needed research on the reproduction of the species. A 

defeciency in the data was recognized by an Administrative Law 

Judge in the 1981 general permit hearing to allow the Japanese 

salmon fishery to take marine mammals inside the U.S. FCZ. 

To resolve this problem, Congress amended the North Pacific 

Fisheries Act in December 1982 and extended the permit through 

June 1987. Extension of the permit is based on requirements such 

as Japan's continued commitment to research, i nst a1 1 ati on of gear modifications, and adequate funding for research. Without this 

extension, the permit would have expired after the 1983 season, 

and the data needed to establish quotas for the new permit might 

not have been available. The amendments call for NMFS to develop 

annual action plans relatting to monitoring and research and 

devel opment. I 

Although a portion of the NMML's research p1 ans for Dall 's 

porpoise could not be carried out in 1982, other research 

continued under the U.S.l-Japan cooperative research program initiated in 1978 under the U.S.-Japan Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) and MMPA permit. During surveys made by U.S. biologists and 

Japanese national s on Japanese salmon research vessel s, Dal 1 's 

porpoise was the most frequently sighted and most abundant 

species. Inside the FCZ, a U.S. biologist was on board each of 

the Japanese salmon mothershi ps to coll ect biological samples and 

data from all incidentally taken marine mammals returned to the 

mothershi ps. Japanese nationals coll ected samples from porpoises 

taken north of the FCZ. 

Platforms of Opportunity Program - Cetaceans 

Since 1971, the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center has 

been collecting marine mammal sightings from a number of sources 

under the auspices of the Platforms of Opportunity Program 
(POP). These sightings are contributed by NOAA and Coast Guard 

vessels, U.S. Forest Service natural ists aboard A1 aska state 

ferries, private fishing vessels, U.S. observers aboard foreign 

fishing vessels, and numerous biologists and boaters. 

NOAA's Outer Continental She1 f Environmental Assessment 

Program (OCSEAP) contracted the NMML to analyze back1 ogged 1978- 

1980 POP sightings. A report to OCSEAP which describes 

distribution of marine mammals in the Gulf of A1 aska and defines 

distributional limits for all species found in this area has been 

compl eted. 

In the past year, there have been many requests for POP 

data. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has used this data as 

part of its Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Program. The U.S. 

Forest Service has used humpback whale sightings in a report on 

humpback distribution in the vicinity of Ketchi kan, A1 aska. A1 so, 

the data base for northern right whale sightings in the eastern 

North Pacific has been included in a paper on right whale 

distribution prepared for the Scientific Committee of the IWC. 

Pinnipeds 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Management 

A final Recovery Pl an for the endangered Hawai i an monk seal 

was made available i? April 1983. The Hawaiian monk seal is 

listed as depleted under the MMPA and endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act which requires a Recovery Plan for certain 

species. In 1980, NMFS issued a draft environmental impact 

statement that evaluated a1 ternatives for designating a portion of 

the seal's range in Hawaii as critical habitat. NMFS is in the 

process of developing a final decision concerning critical 

habitat. 

Under a contract from NMFS, the Center for Environmental 

Education developed and publ ished a poster and brochure depicti ng 

the biology of the Hawaii an monk seal. These were made available 

to the publ ic in early 1983. , 
Research 

A long-term cooperative study of Hawaii an monk seal biology 

was started in 1976 by biologists at the Northwest and Alaska 

Fisheries Center; the National Bird and Mammal Laboratory, Fish 

and Wildlife Service; and contract researchers of the Marine 

Mammal Commission. From 1977 to 1980, surveys were made of the 

status and trends of the population, and a population and 

behavioral study was made at Laysan Island, a small northern 

island of the Hawai i an archi pel ago. Prior censuses indicated most 

i sl and popul at i ons have decreased 50 percent on the average since 

the 1 ate 1950's. Monk seal populations at Kure Atoll, Midway 

Islands, and Pearl and Hermes Reef declined 70 to 90 percent in 

the same period. Lisianski and Laysan Island populations have 

decl i ned 50 to 60 percent whi 1 e monk seal popul at i ons at French 

Frigate Shoals and Necker Is1 and increased during this time. 

The Honolulu Laboratory of the Southwest Fisheries Center 

directs monk seal research for the NMFS. In 1981, a monk seal 

femal e-pup captive maintenance project was initiated to he1 p 

determine the cause of pup disappearance at Kure Atoll and to 

enhance pup survival. As a result of this project, the survival 

of these pups has increased through their first summer. In 

December, 1982 seven of the eight pups that had been captive 

reared in 1981 and 1982 were being resighted regularly at Kure. 

At Lisianski Island, all seals were identified by natural 

scars or bleach marks, and censuses were conducted every other 

day. These data are being used to develop a model of haulout 

patterns for the population and to test various population 

assessment and monitoring techniques. The effect of flipper 

t aggi ng weaned pups on their temporal and spat i a1 haul i ng patterns 

and behavior was also tested. Four pups were found entangled in 

discarded fishing gear at Lisianski indicating this may be a 

significant problem to young seal s. 

Depth-of-di ve recorders and radio transmitters were pl aced on 

adult seals and a few immature seals at Lisianski. The younger 

seals were found to dive deeper and be absent from the island 

longer than the adults. 

The French Frigate Shoals' population was monitored monthly 

by aerial photographic techniques and weekly visits to a few of 

the is1 ands. Inter-island movement of seals at the Shoals and the 

increasing use of Tern Igland by monk seals were monitored. By identifying individuals, the minimum numbers of immature seals and 

adult females at Kure were determined. 

Analysis of over 2,000 scats has been completed. The total 

number of pups born in 1482 throughtout the monk seal range was 

estimated at 193. 

Cal i forni d Coastal Pi nni ped Program 

Management 

The legislation that establ ished the Channel Is1 ands National 

Park instructed the Departments of Interior and Commerce to 

cooperate in the development of a Natural Resources Study and in 

the aspects of the Park planning processes which pertain to marine 

mammals. The Southwest Region and the Southwest Fisheries Center 

are devel oping management and research pl ans for pi nni ped 

populations in the Park iln consultation with the National Park 

Service, the State of Callifornia, and the Office of Coastal Zone 

Management. This cooperative effort will continue for a minimum 

ten year period (1980-1990) as mandated by the legisl ation. A 

report on the status of the pinniped populations in the Park, 

including a discussion of popul ation dynamics, management 

concerns, and information needs, was updated and included in the 

National Park Service's first report to Congress on the status of 

the natural resources in the Park. 

Research 

The popul ation biology and ecology of coastal marine mammal 

stocks of California are being investigated by the Southwest 

Fisheries Center. Research has been directed primarily at 

California sea 1 ions and harbor seals. Mark and recapture 

experiments and census surveys of sea lions were continued on the 

Cal i forni a Channel Is1 ands to assess pup production and survival , pregnancy rates, and the animals' fidelity to their pupping 

areas. Analysis of preliminary data collected on Cal iforni a sea 

lion pup production indicates that the popul ation in the Channel 

Islands is increasing, but the rate of increase is declining. 

Studies on harbor seals continued and, in 1982, 10 harbor 

seals were radi o-tagged on San Nicol as Is1 and, 19 were radiotagged on San Miguel Island and 12 were radio-tagged on the 
Klamath River. One animal tagged on San Nicolas Island was 

observed about 6 months 1 ater on San Miguel Island. These studies 

are designed to evaluate movement patterns and the animals' 

fidelity to pupping sites. Surveys were made to obtain 

information on population abundance, growth, and size. 

Additional research on pinnipeds of California was carried 

out by the NMML in cooperation with the Southwest Fisheries Center 

and the Channel Islands National Park. Studies of competition for 

space and food included research on the nursing cycles and feeding 

behavior of female northern fur seals and California sea lions. 

Depth-of-dive recorders and radio transmitters were attached to 

females of both species which were released and a1 lowed to go to 

sea. The instrument packages were recovered when the females 

returned to land to nurse. 

The two colonies of northern fur seals at San Miguel Island 

produced a total of 1,709 pups during 1982, an 11 percent increase 

over 1981. Pup mortality on land was 5 percent during 1982 

representing a substantial decrease from the 21 percent pup 

mortality recorded in 1981. Nursing cycles from birth to weaning 

for 48 naturally marked northern fur seal females were recorded. 

Females and pups associated an average 142 days (range 101-180). 

Female foraging trips at sea averaged 8.7 days interspersed with 

stays on 1 and to nurse the pup which averaged 1.8 days. 

Also, the Southwest Fisheries Center has received funds from 

the Marine Mammal Commission to computerize data on elephant seals 

on the northern California Faral lon Is1 ands. Since northern 

elephant seals, California sea 1 ions, and harbor seals have 

recently reestablished breeding populations on the Farallon 

I sl ands , there was an opportunity to determine how popul at i ons 

i nteract and reest abl i sh t hemsel ves after depletion, and to gain 

valuable insight into the demography and dynamics of pinniped 

popul ations in general. From 19714 through 1982, a substanti a1 

amount of data, particularly on the northern elephant seal 

population, was acquired. The funds will be used to organize the 

data, develop the necessary comp~uter programs, and enter the data 

into the computer. I 

In addition, aerial surveys were conducted to determine the 

total number of harbor seals hauled out along the coast of 

Californila. These surveys are piart of an effort to establish an 

index against which the status of the harbor seal population can 
be measured. The results of these studies should provide the 

information and management techniques necessary to a1 low the State 

of California to acquire management authority for the several 

species of pinnipeds in which they have expressed an interest. 

Northern Fur Seals in A1 aska 

Management 

Under the Fur Seal Act, NMFS is responsible for managing the 

annual commercial harvest of northern fur seals on the Pribilof 

Islands in Alaska. The U.S. government employs Aleut residents of 

the Islands to harvest the seals. During the 1982 5-week 

commercial harvest on st. Paul Is1 and, 24,730 male fur seals were 

taken. The moratorium on commercial harvest on St. George Island 

continued into its tenth year although a subsistence harvest of 

350 seals took place in July and August. 

Research 

The population of fur seals in the Pribilof Islands is 

declining at the rate of 5 to 8 percent per year. Studies 

indicate that entanglement with debris, such as trawl nets, may be 

a primary factor in this decline. Studies of the objects found on 

entangled fur seals indicate that up to 5 to 10 percent of the 

popul at ion may become entangled each year. 

Biological information collected by the NMML on fur seals of 

the Pribilof Islands of St. Paul and St. George in 1982 included 

determining the age of fur seals harvested, the number of adult 

males on the rookeries and hauling grounds, and the number of pups 

and older seals that died on the rookeries and adjacent beaches. 

In 1982, a total of 203.581 DUDS were born on St. Paul. This 

information is incl uded-in a' N~AFC Technical Memorandum, Fur Seal 

Investigations , 1982. , 

A major effort was made to repeat baseline data on behavior 

collected at St. George Island in 1974 immediately after the end 

of harvesting. Also, the size of the herds was monitored. Final 

data were obtained on the diving behavior of female fur seals and 

a final experiment on estrus was completed. Radioactive tracers 

were used to study the energy used to obtain food, the production 

of milk, and growth rate of young seals. Newborns were tagged to 

provide known-age subjects for future studies. 
An updated report on fur seal dietary habits based on the 

principal prey species of fur seals and the relative abundance of 

the fish-squid resources of California and in the eastern Bering 

Sea was completed. The basic conclusion remains that 

opportunistic feeding by fur seals on the most abundant available 

species prevails throughout the fur seal's range in the eastern 

Pacific Ocean and the eastern Bering Sea. 

North At1 antic Pi nni peds 

Research 

The NMFS has continued to fund a study by the University of 

Maine on the abundance, distribution, and habitat use patterns of 

the harbor seal in the Gulf of Maine. When complete, this 

comprehensive tagging and aeri a1 census effort will provide 

base1 ine data concerning the species. 

The NMFS also funded a harbor seal radio-tracking study in 

Cape Cod Bay, Mass. to better understand the movement patterns of 

harbor seals wintering in the area. 


TABLE 3 

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF MARINE MAMMALS INVOLVED IN 

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHIPUBLIC DISPLAY PERMIT APPLICATIONS 

COMMON NAME 

----------- 

CETACEANS 

--------- 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

--------------- 

ATLANTIC BOTTLENOSE DOLPHI 

ATLANTIC SPOTTED DOLPHIN 

ATLANTIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPH N 

BAIRD'S BEAKED WHALE 

BLACK RIGHT WHALE, NORTHER RIGHT 

BLAINVILLE' s BEAKED WHALE 

BLUE WHALE 

BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS 

BOTTLENOSE WHALES 

BOWHEAD WHALE 

BRY DE ' S WHALE 

I 

COMMERSON' S DOLPHIN 

COMMON DOLPHIN 

CUVIER' S BEAKED WHALE 

DALL' S PORPOISE 

DUSKY DOLPHIN 

DWARF SPERM WHALE 

FALSE KILLER WHALE 

FIN WHALE, FINBACK 

FINLESS PORPOISE 

FRASER'S (SARAWAK) DOLPHI 

GINKGO-TOOTHED BEAKED WHA 

GRAY WHALE 

GRAY'S BEAKED WHALE 

HARBOR PORPOISE 

HEAVISIDE'S DOLPHIN 

HUBBS' BEAKED WHALE 

HUMPBACK WHALE 

KILLER WHALE 

LAGENORHYNCHINE DOLPHINS 

LONG-FINNED PILOT WHALE 

MELON-HEADED WHALE, ELEC 

MINKE WHALE 

NARWHAL 

NORTHERN BOTTLENOSE WHALE 

NORTHERN RIGHT WHALE DOLPHIN 

PACIFIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

PILOT WHALES UNSPECIFIED 

PYGMY KILLER WHALE 

PYGMY RIGHT WHALE 

PYGMY SPERM WHALE 

RIGHT WHALES UNSPECIFIED 

RISSO'S DOLPHIN, GRAMPUS 

ROUGH-TOOTHED DOLPHIN 

SEI WHALE 

TURSIOPS TRUNCATUS 

STENELLA PLAGIODON 

LAGENORHYNCHUS ACUTUS 

BERARDIUS BAIRDII 

BALAENA GLACIALIS 

MESOPLODON DENSIROSTRIS 

BALAENOPTERA MUSCULUS 

TURSIOPS SP. 

HYPEROODON SP. 

BALAENA MYSTICETUS 

BALAENOPTERA EDEN1 

CEPHALORHYNCHUS COMMERSONII 

DELPHINUS DELPHIS 

ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRI S 

PHOCOENOIDES DALLI 

LAGENORHYNCHUS OBSCURUS 

KOGIA SIMUS 

PSEUDORCA CRASSIDENS 

BALAENOPTERA PHYSALUS 

NEOPHOCAENA PHOCAENOIDES 

LAGENODELPHIS HOSE1 

MESOPLODON GINKGODENS 

ESCHRICHTIUS ROBUSTUS 

MESOPLODON GRAY I 

PHOCOENA PHOCOENA 

CEPHALORHYNCHUS HEAVISIDII 

MESOPLODON CARLHUBBSI 

MEGAPTERA NOVAEANGLIAE 

ORCINUS ORCA 

LAGENORHYNCHUS SP. 

GLOBICEPHALA MELAENA 

PEPONOCEPHALA ELECTRA 

BALAENOPTERA ACUTOROSTRATA 

MONODON MONOCEROS 

HYPEROODON AMPULLATUS 

LISSODELPHIS BOREALIS 

LAGENORHYNCHUS OBLIQUIDENS 

GLOBICEPHALA SP. 

FERESA ATTENUATA 

CAPEREA MARGINATA 

KOGIA BREVICEPS 

BALAENA SP. 

GRAMPUS GRISEUS 

STENO BREDANENSIS 

BALAENOPTERA BOREALIS 
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

--------------- 

SHEPHERD'S BEAKED WHALE 

SHORT-FINNED PILOT WHALE 

SOUTHERN RIGHT WHALE 

SPERM WHALE 

SPINNER DOLPHIN 

SPOTTED DOLPHIN 

SPOTTED DOLPHIN 

STENELLINE DOLPHINS 

STRAP-TOOTHED WHALE 

STRIPED DOLPHIN, SYREAKER 

TRUE'S BEAKED WHALE 

UNSPECIFIED CETACEANS 

UNSPECIFIED TOOTHED WHALES 

VAQUITA, COCHITO 

WHITE WHALE, BELUKHA 

WHITE-BEAKED DOLPHIN 

TASMACETU S SHEPHERD1 

GLOBICEPHALA MACRORHYNCHUS 

BALAENA AU STRALIS 

PHYSETER CATODON 

STENELLA LONGIROSTRI S 

STENELLA ATTENUATA 

STENELLA FRONTALIS 

STENELLA SP. 

ME SOPLODON LAYARDII 

STENELLA COERULEOALBA 

MESOPLODON MIRUS 

CETACEA 

ODONTOCETI 

PHOCOENA SINUS 

DELPHINAPTERU S LEUCAS 

LAGENORHYNCHUS ALBIROSTRIS 

AMSTERDAM ISLAND FUR SEAL 

ARCTOCEPHALINE FUR SEALS 

ATLANTIC HARBOR SEAL 

BAIKAL SEAL 

BEARDED SEAL 

CALIFORNIA SEA LION 

CASPIAN SEAL 

CRABEATER SEAL 

DUGONG 

GRAY SEAL 

HARBOR SEALS 

HARP SEAL, GREENLAND S$AL 

HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL 

HOODED SEAL, BLADDERNOSE SEAL 

KERGUELEN FUR SEAL 

LARGHA SEAL, SPOTTED SEAL 

LEOPARD SEAL 

NORTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

NORTHERN FUR SEAL 

NORTHERN SEA LION, STEL 

PACIFIC HARBOR SEAL 

RIBBON SEAL 

RINGED SEAL 

ROSS SEAL 

SOUTH AFRICAN FUR SEAL 

SOUTH AMERICAN SEA LION 

SOUTHERN EZEPHANT SEAL 

UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAMMALS 

UNSPECIFIED PINNIPEDS 

WALRUS 

WEDDELL SEAL 

WEST INDIAN MANATEE 

WESTERN ATLANTIC HARBOR SEAL 

ARCTOCEPHALUS TROPICALIS 

ARCTOCEPHALUS SP. 

PHOCA VITULINA VITULINA 

PHOCA SIBIRICA 

ERIGNATHUS BARBATUS 

ZALOPHUS CALIFORNIANUS 

PHOCA CASPICA 

LOBODON CARCINOPHAGUS 

DUGONG DUGON 

HALICHOERUS GRYPUS 

PHOCA VITULINA 

PHOCA GROENLANDICA 

MONACHUS SCHAUINSLANDI 

CYSTOPHORA CRISTATA 

ARCTOCEPHALUS GAZELLA 

PHOCA LARGHA 

HYDRURGA LEPTONYX 

MIROUNGA ANGUSTIROSTRIS 

CALLORHINUS URSINUS 

EUMETOPIAS JUBATUS 

PHOCA VITULINA RICHARD1 

PHOCA FASCIATA 

PHOCA HISPIDA 

OMMATOPHOCA ROSS11 

ARCTOCEPHALUS PUSILLUS 

OTARIA FLAVESCENS 

MIROUNGA LEONINA 

UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAMMALS 

PINNIPEDIA 

ODOBENUS ROSMARUS 

LEPTONYCHOTES WEDDELLI 

TRICHECHUS MAN ATUS 

PHOCA VITULINA CONCOLOR 
TABLE 4 

SYNOPSIS OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS 

AS OF March 31, 1982 

SCIENTIFIC PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC AND 

April 1, 1982 TO March 31, 1983 

SCIENTIFIC PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC AND 

RESEARCH DISPLAY PUBLIC DISPLAY ---------- ------- -------------- RESEARCH DISPLAY PUBLIC DISPLAY ---------- ------- -------------- 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS 

SUBMITTED 

NO. OF ANIMALS REQUESTEDCTOTAL) 581,579 1,367 

OF THESE: 

TAKEN BY KILLING 23,156 0 

TAKEN AND KEPT ALIVE 412 1.125 

KILLED IN CAPTIVITY 4 9 0 

TAKEN AND RELEASED 536,766 4 4 

FOUND DEAD 1,594 0 

STRANDED~EXCHANGED 104 198 

IMPORTS 3,072 0 

HARASS 16.426 0 

ACTION TAKEN 

NO. OF APFLICATIONS FORWARDED 

TO MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS REVIEWED 

BY MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS WITHDRAWN 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS REFERRED 

V1 

e TO FISH AND WILDLIFE 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS REFERRED 

TO STATES 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS REFERRED 

TO REGIONS 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS RESOLVED 

THROUGH AGREEMENT 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS RETURNED 

DUE TO INSUFFICIENT OR 

INAPPROPRIATE SUBMITTAL 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS DENIED 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS APPROVED 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS PENDING 

NO. OF ANIMALS APPROVED(T0TAL) 580,347 

OF THESE: 

TAKEN BY KILLING 21,614 

TAKEN AND KEPT ALIVE 382 

KILLED IN CAPTIVITY 4 9 

TAKEN AND RELEASED 535,047 

FOUND DEAD 1,112 

STRANDED~EXCHANGED 8 9 

IMPORTS 3.050 

HARASS 19,004 
TABLE 5 

UMBER OF CETACEANS REQUESTED IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH/PUBLIC DISPLAY PERMIT APPLICATIONS(1) 

COMMON NAME 

ATLANTIC SPOTTED DOLPHIN 

LATLANTIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

BAIRD'S BEAKED WHALE 

BLACK RIGHT WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT 

BLUE WHALE 

BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS 

BOWHEAD WHALE 

BRYDE'S WHALE 

COMMERSON'S DOLPHIN 

COMMON DOLPHIN 

CUVIER'S BEAKED WHALE 

DALL'S PORPOISE 

DUSKY DOLPHIN 

DWARF SPERM WHALE 

FALSE KILLER WHALE 

FIN WHALE, FINBACK 

FINLESS PORPOISE 

FRASER'S (SARAWAK) DOLPHIN 

GINKGO-TOOTHED BEAKED WHALE 

GRAY WHALE 

HARBOR PORPOISE 

HUBBS' BEAKED WHALE 

HUMPBACK WHALE 

KILLER WHALE 

LONG-FINNED PILOT WHALE 

MELON-HEADED WHALE, ELECTRA 

UINKE WHALE 

NARWHAL 

NORTHERN RIGHT WHALE DOLPHIN 

PACIFIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

PILOT WHALES UNSPECIFIED 

PYGMY KILLER WHALE 

PYGMY SPERM WHALE 

RISSO'S DOLPHIN, GRAMPUS 

ROUGH-TOOTHED DOLPHIN 

SEI WHALE 

SHORT-FINNED PILOT WHALE 

SOUTHERN RIGHT WHALE 

SPERM WHALE 

SPINNER OOLPHIN 

SPOTTED DOLPHIN 

STENELLINE DOLPHINS 

STRIPED DOLPHIN, STREAKER 

UNSPECIFIED CETACEANS 

VAQUITA. COCHITO 

WHITE WHALE, BELUKHA 

WHITE-BEAKED OOLPHIN 

TAKEN 

BY 

ILLING 

REQUESTED REQUESTED 

AS OF March 31, 1982 April 1, I982 THRU March 3

TAKEN TAKEN 

AND TAGGED OR POUND TAKEN AND TAGGED OR F

KEPT KI1,LED IN TAKEN AND DEAD/ BY KEPT KILLED IN TAKEN AND D

ALIVE CAPTIVITY RELEASED STRND KILLING ALIVE CAPTIVITY RELEASED S

(1) SPECIMEN IMPORTS AND HARASS NT REQUESTS NOT INCLUDED I: 

(2) WHERE PERMIT APPLICANTS REQ STED A TOTAL NUKBER OF ANIb 

PARTICULAR SPECIES, THE NUM R REQUESTED WAS LISTED UNDE 

(3) A SINGLE APPLICATION REQUES D 432,850 CETACEANS AND ACC 

(OUT SPECIFYING THE NUMBER TO BE TAKEN 

{A. 

I TOTAL NUMBER 'IN THIS CATEGORY. 
COMMON NAME 

ARCTOCEPHALINE FUR SEALS 

BAIKAL SEAL 

BEARDED SEAL 

CALIFORNIA SEA LION 

CASPIAN SEAL 

CRABEATER SEAL 

GRAY SEAL 

HARBOR SEALS 

HARP SEAL, GREENLAND SEAL 

HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL 

KERGUELEN FUR SEAL 

LARGHA SEAL, SPOTTED SEAL 

LEOPARD SEAL m NORTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

NORTHERN FUR SEAL 

NORTHERN SEA LION, STELLER 

RIBBON SEAL 

RINGED SEAL 

ROSS SEAL 

SOUTH AFRICAN FUR SEAL 

SOUTH AMERICAN SEA LION 

SOUTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAMMALS 

UNSPECIFIED PINNIPEDS 

WALRUS 

WEDDELL SEAL 

WEST INDIAN MANATEE(2) 

TABLE 6 

NUMBER OF PINNIPEDS REQUESTED IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH/PUBLIC DISPLAY PERMIT APPLICA

REQUESTED 

AS OF March 31, 1982 

REQUESTE

April 1, 1982 THRU 

TAKEN TAKEN 

TAKEN AND TAGGED OR FOUND TAKEN AND TAG

BY KEPT KILLED IN TAKEN AND DEAD/ BY KEPT KILLED IN TAK

KILLING ALIVE CAPTIVITY RELEASED STRND KILLING ALIVE CAPTIVITY REL

SEA LION 16,315 

755 

1,680 

283 

(1) SPECIMEN IMPORTS AND HARASSMENT REQUESTS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS TABLE. 

(2) SIRENIANS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS TABLE IN LIEU OF CREATING A SEPARATE TABLE FOR THE ONE SPECIES REQU

(3) WHERE PERMIT APPLICANTS REQUESTED A TOTAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS TO BE TAKEN WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NUMBER TO 

PARTICULAR SPECIES, THE NUMBER REQUESTED WAS LISTED UNDER UNSPECIFIED PINNIPEDS OR UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAM

ALSO WERE INVOLVED. 
i d a a3 ZYCX 

z>-e 

DYCD r? U C4 m 

m - a.n 

202 - ata - OWC O bow 

C a1 0 OZC I, 4 w 

m Prn Z WZU 

C)mw w VYd 

N 4 4 '21 

CCX 

IIIII 

IIIII 

IIIII 

IIIII 

Ill11 

IIIII 

1 I101 I I 

1 I101 1 I 111 I11 

111 I0 

I11 Ill 

111 Ill 

IIIII 

lIII1 

IltII 

IIIII 

IIIII 

11111 

IIII 

I I I1 

Ill1 

Ill1 

Ilk1 

t111 

IIII 

IIII 

Ill1 

Ill1 

IIII 

lI1111111I 

IIIIIIIOI 

tIIIIlI1Il 

t IIIII Ill1 IIIII IIIII 

IIIIIIIIII 

rlC .r muea 

43'i'o: 

C UU Z4W "YWCZ 

YXW 

X4Ud 

CC 0 

P U zww 

um~m 

% C aouz 

WFU3 

3 WO 3mn.v 

elarnv 

0424 

ZZl 

YY a 2x2 C4W4 

0 n zazm 

0 3 Z "Y a waaw 

YWWV 

CmCa 

-+Z"YW 

>=ww 

84 Z cl V E 

UclVIO 

444m 

C s a- C Z C 3 P N 

w mo 

ZSNJ 

V)SW 

"YCOO 

a 3Y aaxw 

a kl C u XWDd k.40 

OY z ZUXC 

<w='3 ax4 WmE 

C 39 arzu 

or Z a Z.d XSXW 

YWCP. a Z .W we-l 

Z -0 wwuz 

U a U Y wswm 

?-=a 

m 3 V) 4 

e a 021 

4 'i' 

3 rn W Z a VMW 

C5YJ 

aiw 

CC33 

IIIII 

IIIII 

IIIII 

IIIII 

IIIII 

IIIII 

It11 

I I I I IIII 

Ill1 

Ill1 

I I I I 

a 

X 

C 

U 

m w 

el el 3 

3 w - C -1 

0 4 

J X 

m % a P' 1 

2 :I W 

awn 

xz4 

3 2 y u - 2b I WlZ 

auo 

AZJ 

WOW 

YJZ 

4 z 8 Y X Z a a orla 

CWO 

urn0 

Z 

0 -a owm 

0 -1 Y a 4 -r w 43m 

SXA 

a++ 

Cr-c 

4 = = > 3 3 

SPECIES 

ATLANTIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS 

COMEION DOLPHIN 

DALL'S POKPOISE 

FALSE KILLEK WHALE 

FRASEK'S (SAKAWAK) DOLPHIN 

HARROK PORPOISE 

KILLEK WHALE 

LONG-FINNED PILOT rJllALE 

MELON-IiItADED WHALE, ELECTKA 

PACIFIC WIIITE-SIIIED DOLPHIN 

PYGMY KILLEK WHALE 

RISSO'S DOLPHIN, CKAMPUS 

ROUGH-TOOTYED DOLPHIN 

SHORT-FINNED PILOT WliALE 

SPINNEK DOLPHIN 

>POTTED DOLPHIN 

OTKIPEI) DOLPHIN, STKEAKEK 

UNSPECIFIED CETACEANS 

WHITE WHALE, BELUKHA 

WHITE-BEAKED DOLPHIU 

TOTAL NlJMHEK OF ANIMALS: 

SUMMAKY OF PEKMITS FOK PEK ' REMOVAL FKOM E WILD - CETACEANS 

AS OF 31, 1983 

ISSUED EXPIRED CURRENT STED AUTHOR1 REPLACEMENTS .AUTHO

EXPI

(I) ANIMALS TAKEN INCLUDE THOSE INADVERTENTLY KILLED DURING THE COURSE OF KESEARCH AUTHOKIZINC TYPES OF TAKE 

HEMOVAI.. 
00000m0o0m0o~0Um000mOOOm I. 

-W O 4 UOWO-QO-Q U N 0 

OU m O -QV)- OOQN - V) rO 

u 

E m3 x 3W 

s Ycd a. Eer 

1 a. r.. mx 3 aw 

In 

J 

4 -1 a3 4 m w 

v. 1 

z Z 

x C < -1 

3 L -1 4 a -1 z w 'it m a W z m 4 ax Y Jm4W Inva 2.24 4In -1 -r 

44YCY < - =.~rnYInrJwJZ 

%In Z W<In*Y: s 1=zC*.l .d-1 

UJwO44'nzdInw 

O4lbUW 0 3 ~~?rra.=rcc~u 

uY4JZ<<ePx 

cr<W<<cr~~<W 

UmmUUuU-IY 

- 

4 

'it 

m -1 

4 I .d 

wm 

E 

C C 0 z a < m r 
TABLE 11-IWC COMMERCIAL CATCH LIMITS, 1973-1982u 

Southern Hemi sphere 

Tin 

I<inke 

Sei 1 

Sperm (male) 

(female) 

Bryde' s 

North Pacific 

Fin 

Minke 

Sei and Bryde's 

Sei 

Bryde' s Sperm (male) 

(female) 

North Atlantic 

Fin 

tfinke 

Sei 

Sperm 

TOTAL 

COMMERCIAL QUOTAS 

Other 71 

TOTAL 

11 Catch limits are for Antarctic whaling season (December of year of meeting through April of following year) and all coastal s

- year after meeting. The Comnission decided at the 32nd Meeting to apply quotas to coastal whalinq seasons in the year in wh

21 Catch limit covering Antarctic catch only (South of 40 Latitude). - 

3/ Of this figure. 622 whales could not be taken legally by member countries because of the factory ship moratorium and/or the I

- Sanctuary. 

41 Available to be taken from the Peruvian stock in a six-month period starting in November 1982. - 

51 The Comnission also agreed to a 1982 coastal season catch limit of 450. Both catch limits include an allowable bycatch of up 

- 

females. 

61 Although the Comnission adopted no catch limit for the Northeastern stock, the Norwegian Comnissioner indicated that his Gove

- limit catches to 1,690 as though the IWC had in fact adopted such a catch limit. It has therefore been reflected in the figu

71 Whales taken by IWC members but not included in the catch limits. - 

81 The figure in parentheses takes into account the reduction discussed in footnote 3 above as well as catch limits totalina 15

- fin whales for 1982 that were for stocks that had not been exploited since 1971. 








Appendix B 

Laws and Treaties Governing the Protection of Marine Mammals 

Every marine mammal of U.S. concern is protected by one or more 

u.S. laws or acts, and the conservation of some species is 

partially assured by international treaty or law. A summary of 

laws, conventions, and commissions designed to protect marine 

mammals follows. 

United . States . - Laws and Treaties 

1. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972: A U.S. Federal Law 

that prohibits persons under the jurisdiction of the United 

States from taking, harassing, or importing any marine mammal or 

its byproducts into the United States, except when authorized to 

do so by special permit. Certain natives of Alaska may take 

marine mammals for subsistence use. (See introduction for a 

complete description of this Act). 

2. Endangered Species Act of 1973: This U.S. Federal law 

provides a program for the conservation of species that are 

either endangered now or threatened with extinction within the 

foreseeable future and their dependent ecosystems, and to 

implement international conservation conventions. With limited 

exceptions, the Act prohibits the taking, importing, exporting, 

and interstate commerce of any endangered species, as well as 

their parts or products. Exceptions include permits for 

scientific purposes or the enhancement of propagation or survival 

of the species, economic hardship exemptions, and subsistence 

taking by Alaska natives. For threatened species, the Act 

authorizes the issuance of protective regulations as necessary 

for their conservation. To accomplish its purposes, the Act 

authorizes the acquisition of land; authorizes cooperative 

agreements with States which have an adequate conservation 

program, including Federal funding of up to two-thirds (or threefourths when entered with more than one State); prohibits Federal 

agencies from taking any action that would jeopardize the 

continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or 

result in the destruction or modification of its critical habitat 

unless an exception is granted by the Endangered species 

Committee; requires the development of recovery plans; and 

provides for civil and criminal penalties. 

Marine mammals under the jurisdiction of NMFS and listed as 

endangered species are the blue whale, bowhead whale, fin whale, 

gray whale, humpback whale, right whale, sei whale, sperm whale, 

Caribbean monk seal, ~awaiian monk seal, and Mediterranean monk 

seal. 

70 
3. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 

Wild Fauna and Flora: The Convention, which entered into force 

on July 1, 1975, provides additional protection for the following 

marine mammals under the jurisdiction of NMFS: Appendix I--blue 

whale, bowhead whale, gray whale, humpback whale, right whale, 

certain stocks of fin and sei whales, Ganges River dolphin, 

humpbacked dolphin, Indus River dolphin, white flag dolphin, 

f inless porpoise, cochito (porpoise), Caribbean monk seal, 

Hawaiian monk seal, Mediterranean monk seal, and northern 

elephant seal; Appendix 11--certain stocks of fin and sei whales, 

all other cetaceans, and the southern elephant seal, Amsterdam 

Island fur seal, Kerguelen fur seal, New Zealand fur seal, 

Southern (South American) fur seal, and South African fur seal. 

Trade is more strictly controlled for Appendix I animals than for 

Appendix I1 animals. The U.S. Management Authority for the 

Convention (U.S. Department of the Interior) controls the import, 

export, re-export, and introduction from the sea of convention 

animals through a system of permits and enforcement. 

~mplementation by regulating commerce began May 23, 1977. 

4. International Whaling Commission: The IWC was established 

under a convention signed in Washington, D.C., in December 1946. 

The membership includes all countries that catch significant 

numbers of whales except Portugal. The IWC is responsible for 

whale conservation worldwide. In recent years, the IWC has acted 

to bring world whaling under control by prohibiting the taking of 

some species, sharply reducing the authorized catches of species 

in certain areas, establishing catch quotas by stocks, and 

implementing an international observer plan for checking 

compliance with quotas and regulations at land stations and on 

factoryships. The IWC now regulates the harvest of Bryde's, fin, 

minke, sei, and sperm whales. The blue, bowhead, gray, humpback, 

and right whales are completely protected, except for some 

hunting by aborigines. 

5. Whaling Convention Act of 1949: This Act brought into force 

the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling signed 

on December 2, 1946, by the United States and certain other 

governments. Article I11 of the International Convention 

established the IWC. 

6. Interim Convention on North Pacific Fur Seals: The 

convention, ratified in 1957, prohibits most citizens of Canada, 

Japan, the U.S.S.R., and United States from taking northern fur 

seals. The exceptions are aboriginal Eskimos, Aleuts, and 

Indians, who may take them only at sea and by primitive methods. 

The convention also provides for intensive research on this 

species by the four countries. The Unite'd States and U.S.S.R. 

commercially harvest northern fur seals on their breeding grounds 

and regulate the kills on a scientific basis. The Interim 

Convention has been extended until 1984. 

7. Fur Seal Act of 1966: This Act brought into force the Interim 

convention on North Pacific Fur Seals. 
8. International Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic 

Seals 1977: The purpose of this convention is to safequard all 

species of Antarctic seals and to ensure that, it commercial 

sealing begins on floating ice of the Southern Ocean, the taking 

of any species will be subject to strict limitations to prevent 

overexploitation or damage to their ecosystem. Measures adopted 

under the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 provide only for the 

protection of seals 'and other animals around the shoreline of the 

~ntarctic Continent, but not on floating ice. The convention of 

1972 may be applicable to crabeater, leopard, Ross, southern 

elephant, southern fur seals, and Weddell seals south of latitude 

60° south. The ROSS, southern elephant, and southern fur seals 

are protected species, and no taking is permitted. 
Miscellaneous Regulations and Agreements of U.S. Interest 

1, International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries: 

Under tenns of a convention signed in 1949, ICNAF is responsible 

for the investigation, protection, and conservation of the fisheries 

of the Northwest Atlantic. On January 1, 1977, Canada extended its 

jurisdieion over fisheries to 200 miles. avoid conflicts in 

1977 between Canadian and international regulations, Canada agreed to 

adopt ICfW regulations for the 1978 harvest of harp seals and 

hooded seals. 

An mdment to the ICNW Convention adopted in Dece 1978 allws 

the Catmission to give scientific advice for management of fisheries 

within natural fishery limits if requested by a coastal state that 

is a party to the Convention. 

Canada appears to have ccanpleted the transition fran international 

to Canadian managerent of harp and hooded seals within the limits 

of ~anadian fisheries jurisdiction. The United States withdrew £ran 

the ICNAF in December 1976 to conform with provisions in the 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Managent Act. 

2. Canadian Norwegian Agreerent on Sealing: On December 22, 1971, 

these two gov~ts ratified an aqreemmt on sealinq and the 

conservation- of seal stocks in the -Northwest Atlantic.'. The agreemnt 

applies to the harp seal, but provision is made for extension to 

hooded and bearded seals and to the walrus. 

3. Harp Seal: The U.S.S.R. and Norway signed an agremt in 1958 

entitled "Preservation of Seals in the Greenland Sea." The agreement 

provides for the regulation of harp seal catches by these two nations. 

The U.S.S.R., however, has not hunted harp seals since 1965. 

4. Gray Seal: The U.S.S.R. has prohibited (since 1970) the hunting of 

gray seals for sport and by amateurs, but pennits the taking of 

these animals for subsistence. Canada uses an 1886 law for authority .' 

in regulating the take of gray seals. England has prohibited the 

hunting of gray seals on the Farne Islands since 1932 and on 

Orkney Island since 1923. Norway has forbidden hunting at Sar 

Trondelag since 1923. Finland and Sweden offer bonuses for gray 

seals taken. 

5. Hooded SeaL Canada and Norway prohibit the taking of hooded 

sedis near ~&oundland before March 10, near 'Jan Mayen Island 

before March 13, in Derrmark Strait £ran June 15 to July 15, and 

in northern waters frm filar& 20 to May 5. The U .S .S.R. and 

Norway in 1958 agreed to prohibit the harvest of hooded seals 

near Jan Mayen Island before March 13 and banned hunting in Derrmark 

Strait. 
Appendix C 

Notices and Regulations 

Final rules and regulations are reprinted each year in the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR). Copies of the following rules, regulations, 

and notices published in the Federal Register are available from 

the Office of Protected Species and Habitat Conservation, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, 

D.C. 20235. The following list does not include FR Notices for 

scientific research and public display permits: 

1. FR Vol. 47, No. 68 (April 8, 1982) - Notice of determination 

that NMFS finds the Government of El Salvador in substantial conformance 

with U.S. regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental 

to commercial fishing operations. 

2. FR Vol. 47, No. 91 (May 11, 1982) - Final rule concerning the 

taking of bowhead whales by Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos for subsistence 

purposes, and rule related notice concerning a cooperative agreement 

between NOAA and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. 

3. FR Vol. 47, No. 92 (May 12, 1982) - Proposed rule concerning 

the transfer of marine mammal management to the states, 

4. FR Vol. 47, No. 96 (May 18, 1982) - Final rule concerning regulations 

governing small takes of marine mammals incidental to spec if ied activities . Includes specific regulations covering the take of ringed seals 

incidental to seismic activities in the Beaufort Sea. 

5. FR Vol. 47, NO. 209 (October 28, 1982) - Rule related notice 

of amendment of cooperative agreement between NOAA and the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission. 

6. FR Vol. 48, No. 30 (February 11, 1983) - Notice of issuance 

of a general permit to the Republic of Korea to take marine mammals 

incidental to commercial fishing operations. 

7. FR Vol. 48, No. 42 (March 2, 1983) - Notice of modification 

to general permit to the Federation of Japan Salmon Fisheries Cooperative 

Association.